Talk:Iraqi insurgency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraqi insurgency article.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Chameleon, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
To-do list for Iraqi insurgency: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Reduce article size; currently 45 kB
  • General cleanup of text
  • Get rid of some superfluous links
  • Update article with newer info
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force

Contents

[edit] 93% of Iraqui insurgents are locals?

NPR (National Public Radio) reported 06/17/06 a poll result that 93% of the insurgents are local Iraquis. Any source for this?

[edit] Archives

[edit] Foreign Insurgents

Isn't this an oxymoron?

No, not really. It is the most commonly used term, although I suppose you could change it to "foreign fighters" if you see fit. However, I think this section is long enough to merit its own article; some of the text on the main article can be trimmed off and a new article can be created. There is a lot to explain about syria, Iran, et. al. Some pictures wouldn't hurt either.--Crucible Guardian 01:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful about using "the most commonly used term" because they can be misleading. In this instance you have to start from the basis that anyone who isn't Iraqi is a "foreigner". However the problem comes when you begin to attach a label to the term, because by definition you could say that US troops are "foreign fighters". Anyone interested by the misuse of language in politics and the media should take a look at a book called 'Unspeak' by Steven Pool. An interesting read.

[edit] Ongoing Edit War

Could people please use the talk page instead of having an ongoing edit war on this article? It barely lasted one or two days after being unprotected before it went right back to vprot.

A lot of the editing conflict seems to be about rather silly semantics, like the difference between "known by their supporters as the iraqi resistance" versus "also known as the iraqi resistance." Sounds to me like the war over what end of an egg should be broken from Gulliver's Travels.

To be a litle NPOV:NOT (or perhaps, super NPOV, depending on your impression of this) atm, the US is in Iraq to aggrandize its own political and power ends, and the insurgents/resistance/whatever is also serving its own, various political and power ends. The US wants a foothold in the middle east to control the region. The Sheites want to control the country. The Sunnis want to get back in power. A lot of the terrorists who are chopping people's heads off and blowing themselves and others up want to make the US look bad. It's another war over power, like people have had over . . . um . . . practically all of recorded history.

Anyway, if this keeps up, we'll need a wikipedia article just to document the crazy edit war going on in this article. . . just stick to the facts and try to avoid picking a side, and if there's a language problem, just use both of the terms, and avoid silly fights over whose term goes first. Or perhaps using terms like "insurgency" or "resistance" are a bad idea. Find something else to call it.

RudolfRadna 17:15 November 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irony of the Insurgency

Why was the passage deleted about the irony of the insurgency keeping the US in Iraq, rather than driving it out? I don't see how this is POV, and it is relevant.

If it's considered OR, then I think we have to do a better job of defining what OR is, because it's sort of unclear to me.

I could be wrong, and someone correct me if I am, but my impression of OR is that it is statements intended to communicate objective fact (such as what year a country was founded, or at what temperature the melting point of copper is) without any citation or support. That is obviously a threat to wikipedia's accuracy if it is allowed, since nobody could be sure if wikipedia's article communicating this objective information was accurate or not.

However, I don't see how an analysis of existing, established facts, without seeking to make an unsupported factual statement, can qualify as original research. This is merely thought. If we're going to be in the business of barring thought, then the rules on the WP:NOT page should be amended as such. Of course, in my opinion, that would turn wikipedia into wiktionary with a somewhat broader scope, but it's not my site, so it can be whatever the admins want.

However, it is my opinion that analysis of fact, that does not attempt to state facts that may or may not exist, is not a threat to wikipedia since there is no accuracy problem, and may encourage a deeper level of understanding of the factual material, as well as a better level of writing. It is certainly better to try to improve text that a user finds objectionable, rather than merely deleting it.

On a tangental note, I find that I am constantly disappointed at the repeated repeated repeated repeated failure of users to use the talk page to discuss deletions they want to implement before wiping them out, usually without even a two word comment to explain what the motivation for the deletion was. I personally see this as nothing more than removing text one merely doesn't like, without trying to actually improve the article, and without even trying to justify what you're doing, even though this is supposed to be a community of users, not a bunch of random people all doing their own thing.

From the Wikipedia NPOV page: (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

"Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased."

(Emphasis added)

RudolfRadna 12:32 November 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Neolithic really User:Wik?

Is that you User:Wik? User:Neolithic's edit style in the insurgency article is very similar ... anyways ... the government and civilians are a primary targets nowadays, the international troops are not targeted as much. ALSO, the end the occupation occured @ the handover of sovergeinity. Sincerely, JDR

Of course it is Wik. -- Netoholic @ 14:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for page protection

Because of user:wik's sockpuppet, Neolithic, reverting this page I put a notice @ the RFP. Sincerely, JDR (PS., already over my limit in edits to it, I'm walking away (for atleast 12hrs) ... I am sorry for my conduct.)

[edit] Edits by User:Neolithic

I looked closer at Neolithic's recent edits. He is favoring the statement 'Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi' while others are opposing him and restoring the statement 'Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are not Iraqi' (emphasis mine). The reference given for that quote can be consulted and it is clear that the version favored by Neolithic is the correct one.

Please stop reverting to the incorrect version of this page. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony ... bzzt ... -50pts ... you misread the history. The occurs in one edit of the history. He is removing, mainly, these:

  1. the entire Background section
  2. "Terrorist groups are Iraqi insurgents who actively target civilian populations, in an attempt to communicate their political messages through violent means."

You didn't really look close at Neolithic's edits. As that citation was IN THE ARTICLE. The edits are not about that. Sincerely, JDR 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Tony, it is JDR/Reddi who is out of line here. I am not sure about the "background" paragraph, but in the intro JDR keeps reverting to language that is contested above as blatantly POV and Neolithic is changing it back to the version that is considered superior by others on this page. I believe JDR jumped the gun in calling Neolithic's edits vandalism. To see some of the discussion about these changes look above to the "AIF terminology" section and look for the most recent comments. I will go ahead and revert JDR's changes again, though I plan to leave the "background" section alone.--csloat 20:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Language that is blatantly POV? How is it POV? The UN say that the new Iraqi government is soverein! JDR
Please, sir. We're having that discussion above already in the "AIF terminology" section. Check the discussion and respond to the points there.--csloat 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much pointless ... when you focus on grammar citicism, ignore my questions, and make statements such as "cartoon caped crusaders in a toilet bowl cleaner advertisement" (kinda funny, but constructively useless). JDR 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually you're the one ignoring the arguments; sorry if you didn't like my joke, it wasn't meant to be offensive.csloat 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What points have I been ignoring? please tell me ... I do responses by me to your comments and do not see any that have been ignored ... but you have several times ignored direct questions.
And the "joke" wasn't 'offensive' ... just useless.
Sincerely, JDR 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insurgency vs. Resistance (not again)

I think a reasonable solution to the back and forth with these words -- and the inclusion of nonencyclopedic comments whose only purpose seems to be to take a side on one of these terms -- might be to have a section called "Insurgency or Resistance?" that outlines different views. For example the David Enders quote under "Composition" does not belong there at all; it was obviously put there for POV reasons to preempt arguments about this. Why not have a section acknowledging that there are arguments about whether this is a "resistance"? Certainly many people see it that way, not just Saddam loyalists and European hippies. American counterterrorism experts and even people in the US military have referred to it that way. I don't see the point of going back and forth forever on this and obviously there are wikipedia editors who feel strongly enough on both sides that there will be constant struggle about this. --csloat 20:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just put in a POV warning. The inclusion of encyclopedic comments is to delineate facts. Insurgency or Resistance? That would be great IMO. As to David Enders quote, he's a scholar! Wikipedia seeks scholarly opinions. JDR 20:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the quotation does not belong under "Composition"; it is simply not talking about that. A section devoted to the question of whether it should be called "resistance" would be the proper place for such quotes. The POV warning is a good idea; the POV problems are pretty bad throughout this article on all sides of the political spectrum. The revert war is just going to keep going on indefinitely (or until we invade Iran and everybody starts in on the Iranian Insurgency article :) --csloat 02:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It should be somewhere .. and the "Composition" is a good temporary place ... until a section devoted the the exact nature of "resistance", "rebel", "militant", "thug", "criminal" and/or "terrorist" can be made. It does talk about the "composition" in the sense as to "who is part of the insurgency".
Also, the POV problems aren't that bad (... POV problems are mostly in the intro; the removal of the background; and some of the scope and size of the insurgency ...) ... the rest of the article lists mostly facts and cites sources. (I agree that the revert war is just going to keep going on indefinitely until the United States and Great Britian invades Syria and Iran (because of thier meddling in Iraq) and people start in on the Iran War article =-])
Sincerely, JDR 17:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont feel this the bullet under "Composition": "Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency)." Should be included. One could argue that this is an aspect of an insurgency (an argument that at the moment I would disagree with", however it does not accuratly describe a component of a violent insurgency, the kind which I feel this page is trying to describe. The portion in parentheses obviously shows this, so I just thought I would bring more attention to fixing this.

[edit] To and fro between alternate POV versions

To me as an outsider it looks as if there's a lot of to-and-fro between different versions each of which has its own point of view.

One version seems to place statements as fact without any reference, such as: "However, even has this may have been the case in the short term after the removal of Saddams regime in 2003, the attraction of foreign Islamists and insurgent violence has pretty much destroyed what credibility left they had in defending the Iraqi people from Coalition 'brutality' when they enacted even more brutal acts themselves" and " During the operation Matador and Ensuring rights campaigns in Tall Afar and Mosul (2005) the Al Queda and insurgent groups inhabiting the area have been destroyed (80% of the network the insurgents used was dismantled in the two operations)".

The other version, while better in some ways, seems to omit some factual reports, such as the omission of: "In August to September 2005, there has been marked relevations of his army infiltrating the Police in Basra, this culminated into the arrest of Mahdi Army leaders, or aides, which lead to the capture of two SAS undercover operatives who were hence arrested and then transferred to a milita house of the Sadr movement..." etc. There should be some reports about the activities in Basra involving UK undercover agents, their capture and rescue, although the language of the omitted section does, I admit, leave much to be desired. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a danger here of editing from the point of view of a nation (US, Iraq, UK, Russia or other) whereas the wikipedia should be nationless, that is to say - there is no reason why edits should take the UN, US, UK or any other authority as the center of a moral compass. Objectivity is key, which is to analyse all available information, stay away from specific and direct reporting of incidents (described in press releases by both warring faction's propoganda machines) and to describe the generalities of current situations without falling into the trap of regurgitating contemporary history as described by Western academics, again largely informed by one side. The best analysis of current affairs is gained by seeing each situation from all the player's perspectives, with sympathy to each. The so-called revelations described above are clearly British army originated co-intel.

[edit] Featured article status

This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree - for a long time I have suggested that the "featured article" status is an embarrassment. Unfortunately the article seems to have gotten worse since then, not better.--csloat 20:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Unilaterally de-featuring articles should not be done. I've added a nomination on WP:FARC, please comment there. Worldtraveller 12:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iran British skirmish

I found this article funny. Basically, the article discuss the dynamics that was going on behind scene leading to British government accussing Iran of mischief.

"One cannot of course judge the accuracy of the accusation.

And there are questions to be asked about how Britain might have made the connection with Hezbollah.

The body of a British solider is carried to a military transport plane in Basra Fatal attacks have risen noticeably in the past few months Britain has no experience of Lebanon. So how would it know that bombs used in southern Iraq could be connected to bombs used by Hezbollah?

The answer has to involve the Israelis, with perhaps the Americans acting as intermediaries.

Who other than Israelis and Americans would know how Hezbollah makes a bomb? The Lebanese are unlikely to tell.

This in turn opens up all kinds of interesting issues. For one thing, the intelligence relationship between Britain and Israel, with or without the US, must be quite close these days.

This has not always been the case. But mutual dangers often bring mutual support." [1]

[edit] Image Use

I'm sorry, but I really have to question the taste in using the following image in the article, it seems to me we try to *avoid* messy pictures of gore when possible. The article is well-illustrated without the image, and it doesn't add anything NPOV to the article. (Note of course, that a 'equal but opposite' page like United States Army would never show a photo of the same vein)

Image:Suicidebombcarnage.jpg

I don't think we should keep away from images that contain gore. Think picture might become useful as the article changes (I don't think it is useful now). --CalPaterson 09:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Land war in Ninevah province

How can this be a featured article? As far as I can see, it entirely omits mention of the ongoing land war in Ninevah province, which I should think almost anyone would call significant. I added a few notes about it just now in the Mosul article, and came here to see what writeup it had here, and cannot find any mention of it at all?? ~~

[edit] Revert war

Could somebody please explain what's going on with the 2/3 Nov revert war? This seems to involve going back and forth between different versions of the intro which don't differ greatly in substance as far as I can see, and neither one is that good anyway. Rd232 talk 14:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right. Here's the play-by-play.
There's a user who I'll call User:Hesketh Fortescue, although that's just one of his amny sockpuppets. Hesketh really doesn't like User:Reddi. Reddi originally made a change in the intro, a shown here, and Hesketh (at that time operating as User:Eoritwiethm) reverted. Reddi, along with User:Alex Bakharev, got into a revert war with Hesketh. 3RR violations were had all around. Whenever Hesketh's account would be blocked for violating the 3RR, he would just create a new account and go at it again. 6 so far, at least. Hesketh said as much here, responding to threats of bans with "Good luck. Perhaps I will run out of usernames or IPs."
I put up a notice about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hesketh Fortescue and related sockpuppets. Many of us admins object to Hesketh's behavour on principle, and are reverting his changes and blocking his sockpuppets because he is violating Wikipedia guidelines about evading blocks and using sockpuppets. I personally don't have any opinion about whether Reddi's or Hesketh's version is better, but I don't think Hesketh's behaviour is tolerable. As the respected admin User:Ral315 said, "I would urge other administrators to treat all sockpuppets on that page with indefinite blocks, and treat all reversions by other users as simple vandalism fixes. Doing this change without consensus and then using sockpuppets to bait other users into 3RR while 'avoiding' it yourself is gaming the system and about 5 other policy violations." – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I see from User talk:Hesketh Fortescue that the extreme sockpuppetry related to concerns about others' alleged POV-pushing. This is what talk pages are for; if HF wishes to calm down and discuss, he stands a chance of getting his concerns addressed. Otherwise, his edits will rightly be treated as vandalism. Rd232 talk 15:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Message to Beatrice Hollandsworth, or whoever

You know, the tragedy about this is that I'm somewhat sympathetic to the change you keep wanting to make - I'm just not sympathetic to your methods. At last count, it looks like. . . no one approves of your methods. If you tried discussing the change on talk, like an adult, I'll bet you'd find it more effective. Unless your goal is to get people to disagree with you. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The edits that the various sockpuppets are making are not acceptable .... the "Anti-Iraqi Forces" (AIF) is a term by the multinational coalition in general ... as search of the .mil sites and the .mod.uk sites show.
The violence is mainly call the Iraqi insurgency in the press with Iraqi resistance being used by more extreme left of center / ant-war proponents. It is not a continuation of the Iraq War The war of Iraq ended with the defeat of the old Iraqi army.
AND ... a telling POV-push is in the paragraph "A growing share of the Iraqi population" ...
Sincerely, JDR 21:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
AIF is only used by the US military and occasionally the Brits; it is not used "by the multinational coalition in general." It is also quite obviously an Orwellian euphemism since the folks using it are themselves non-Iraqi. The term "resistance" is not just used by the left: it is quite common in counterterrorism literature and even in US military publications. Obviously the invasion and insurgency are two separate phases of the same war; it is sheer POV and misleading semantics to suggest they are unrelated. Finally, the fact that a growing share of Iraqis support the insurgency and oppose the occupation is readily confirmed from looking at opinion polls going back to 2003.--csloat 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing "Orwellian" about using AIF. Spend a day in the military and you'd realize literally everything is given non-civilian sounding nomenclature. Virgil61 09:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insurgency Groups

The list of groups given is ... meaningless! I've never ever heared of a group called "The Snake Head"!! where the hell did they come from?
Some of the major main groups are:

  • Islamic Resistance Movement, the 20th Revolution Brigades. (harakt al-moqawama al-islamiya, kata'eb thowrat al-ishreen)
  • Islamic Army in Iraq (al jaish al islamy fil iraq)
  • The Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-jabha al-islamiya lil-moqawama al-iraqiya)
  • Jaish al-Mujahideen (the army of mujahideen)
  • Jaish al-Rashideen (the army of the ????)

edit the last is the rightly guided army --anon 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Failures of the insurgency

I think it is important to point out just how big of a failure the insurgency has been. They have failed to reach any political goal that they have set in Iraq. They failed to prevent the formation of a governing council, the writing of an interim constitution, the transfer of sovereignty, the general elections in January of this year, the writing of a democratic constitution, and then the passing (by a huge majority) of that constitution. They fought hard against all of these, and they were rebuffed at every step of the way by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis. They have only succeeded in killing people and, to a lesser extent, influencing US public support for the war. Thats not a very good track record. Here is a somewhat dated (June 2005) opinion piece about this from Amir Taheri. http://www.arabnews.com/?article=64848--192.55.52.2 20:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, shouldn't it also be added that the occupation and the US regime has also been disastrous failures, at least in its variously avowed goals (finding nuclear weapons, securing the country, promoting peaceful democracy, achieving stable US control of oil production, achieving stable and maintainable US military bases)? There is plenty of failure to go around :)


I'm very unconvinced by the categorisation of groups. How does 'nationalists' become conflated with 'sunni nationalists'? (I'm sure a majority of Iraqi Shia would consider themselves nationalists, militant or not) Why no mention of Shiite groups other than the Mahdi army? Won't edit this now, because it would involve reorganizing a lot of the page, but if somebody has the time and knowledge I think they should Danohuiginn 10:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign fighters

A change regarding the definition of "foreign fighters" was reverted. I think the point the person was making with this addition was that U.S. and British troops, while technically foreign fighters, are not what is meant by the term. It really refers to foreign fighters fighting against the coalition. Maybe the point should be added? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ya, it needs fixing, because it looks really silly to say foreign fighters are Arabs, when the overwhelming majority of them are from the United States and are not Arabs at all. Its obviously used euphemistically, but such a euphemism needs to be spelled out, as it will become less and less understandable with time, as the current set of euphemists are lost to history. Although it is a euphemism, and obviously one with a political agenda, it is also in widespread use in the West (right?), so it probably belongs in the English article, I think? Alfar 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error

> Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement;

That is so wrong I don't know how to fix it. I'd remove the pejorative reference to Salafi entirely, here. Actually, the reference to "Sunni Islamists" is not very correct either, but I'm not sure exactly what the article wants to say, so I can't quite fix it. Alfar 05:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moqtada al-Sadr

This section is too much weighted by propaganda on one side. Moqtada al-Sadr probably is involved in violence (who doesn't believe it?), but it presents a misperception to leave out the important issue that his persecution was also heavily political. ~~

Also, I find the line Supporters of the young Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr are largely young, unemployed and often impoverished men from the Shi'a urban areas and slums in Baghdad and the southern Shi'a cities. rather POV unless we have actual statistics, from what I've seen they're largely men in their 20s and 30s (average age for men in the military, no younger than the Americans fighting them), and calling them unemployed is like calling a US soldier unemployed because he's not also working at McDonalds, the insurgency is their job. Sherurcij 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is from various newspapers, Sherurcij. Did you read the papers @ the time of Moqtada al-Sadr's uprising? 20:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
If it's from newspapers, source it with facts. As it stands, no. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change the title!

Calling this an insurgency gived the enemies of the Coalition and the legitimate Iraqi government a legitimacy they do not deserve and betrays the article's heavy liberal bias.

Eakahn

Like it or not, these people qualify as insurgents - the campaign they are waging, while often using terrorism to achieve its goals, still manages to be a resistance effort to a foreign prescence in their country and to foreign influence and meddling into what they view as their own affairs. They either qualify as rebel groups - a term which, for some reason, the media doesn't like using, perhaps because of the immediate heroic association we automatically give to the word 'rebel' - or as combatants sowing instability and attempting to overthrow the current government. Insurgents they are, rebels they are, terrorists they are - but only insurgency covers the necessary ground well enough to describe them properly.

--Kulindar 16:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Equating foreign terrorists, who attack Iraqi civilians as well as the Coalition forces, with a legitimate insurgency is exactly the kind of bias I'm talking about. --Eakahn 19:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of its merits and shortcomings, it is remarkable that the term "insurgency" was recommended by the spokeman of the White House, broadcasted on Fox News and spread all over the media from there. Rama 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
When Rama? Me thinks that you are taking stuff outta context. The "insurgency" now is far more terroristic than say early 2004. JIMO. JDR 20:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL... This is ludicrous. The term "insurgency" was voted on as I recall after a long debate whereby it was characterized as the more illegitimate alternative to "resistance," which was characterized as legitimate opposition to occupying forces. Now we have someone claiming that "insurgency" gives them more legitimacy? Preposterous. I suppose you feel they should just be called "the evildoers" or something? Also if you would actually read the article you'd see that the so-called "foreign fighters" are a small minority of the insurgency, which is made up much more of Sunni Iraqis than foreigners. But in either case, "insurgency" hardly confers legitimacy. And it would be downright idiotic to imagine that the insurgency is something other than a response to the invasion and perceived occupation of Iraq, no matter which side of the political fence you might be sitting on.--csloat 11:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retooling the history section

Am I the only one who thinks it has become a tad ridiculous to just list the daily body count? There are sites that do that better and more accurately than us, and moreover wikipedia shouldn't focus on these relatively minor attacks and skirmishes. What wikipedia should detail is the overall trend and sweep of history with regards to the insurgency - mention should be made of repeated offensives in the Euphrates River valley in the fall of 2005 and the assaults on Tal Afar, but we don't need the operational names for these sweeps, nor do we need detailed statistics of which units participated and how many. In other words, the history section could be cleaned up and reduced, following general trends - the phase we seem to have fallen into now is a grinding, pair-of-bombs-a-day war, with general unrest rampant but the insurgency failing to hold any ground for a long stretch of time. We do not need dates for drive by shootings - I don't mean to imply that these shootings aren't important, but this is a war, and a history of war that details every minor skirmish and shoot-out isn't particularly useful, especially for lay students of the subject. So unless anyone protests, I'm going to change the history section some and clean it up with these thoughts in mind. --Kulindar 17:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't every one ... but the major ones that have been noted in current events .... history of war that details noteable skirmishs and shoot-out is useful (and if an editor put it on the current events page, it probably was "notable" to some extent).
We do need dates ... as in one year, the dating of these events will be "lost" if it isn't there (mabey not "lost" .... but definitely harder to find) .... AND for wikipedia to detail overall trends and sweep of history with regards to the insurgency, the details and dates are needed.
But, take a stab at a rewrite ... I'd like to see the results. Sincerely, JDR 17:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., I need to do a Oct 2005 history ... seems no one did that)

[edit] Why the insurgency??

I don't volunteer to write it, but it seems to me that this article is lacking one of the most important sections: why is there an insurgency? Is it because many ex-Baathists were driven into unemployment by the puppet government, and resent it? Is it because many ex-Baathists were driven out of power by the sweep to clean the government? (These first two are nearly the same, with wording suggesting different points of propaganda, for fun :)) Is it because many people resent the Shi control of the government? Is it because many people resent the US trying to take ownership of the oil industry? Is it because many people resent the corruption brought by Chalabi and so forth? Is it because many people hate US and British soldiers, or US and British people in general? Is it because many people resent the US using Saddam's torture facilities to torture Iraqi prisoners? Is it because many people never admitted defeat in the Second Gulf/US vs Iraq war? Is it... insert any number of explanatory hypotheses here :) ~~

The problem is such a section would be almost inherently full of speculation and original research. Not to mention it would likely be the site of even more vicious edit wars that we see on the article itself. But I agree that there should at least be a few quotations from authorities about the question; not necessarily in its own section.--csloat 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
":) ~~" Is that drool? .... "Please do not feed the trolls". JDR

[edit] AIF Redux

See Talk:Iraqi_insurgency/archive2#AIF_terminology for the prior conversation

I accidentally hit enter before finishing my edit summary. Almost nobody outside the US military uses the ridiculous phrase "Anti-Iraqi Forces" or AIF to talk about the insurgency. It is both Orwellian and imbecilic, which perhaps makes it perfect for Pentagon propaganda, but I am not aware of it being widespread enough among anyone normally interested in being understood. Since some 90% of the supposed AIF are Iraqi, it is just nonsensical. If we're going to include it at all in this entry we should be honest about who is actually using the phrase.--csloat 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you yourself should probably be 'honest' about who those 90% of Iraqis are; predominantely former Baathists and Sunnis who've lost their former status and power to the over 60% majority Shia. If you dislike AIF then your new definition should include the reality of who really constitutes the insurgency. Virgil61 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The coalition military uses the the phrase "Anti-Iraqi Forces" or AIF (be honest about who is actually using the phrase). .... and .... reguardless that 90% of the AIF are Iraqi, the AIF is fighting against the sovergein Iraqi Government. JDR 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is almost entirely the US military using that phrase. There are few instances of British military using it, and none of any other coalition member. Again, let's be honest. And please leave the "sovereign Iraqi government" issue to the side; they are also fighting the occupation. We've already had that discussion. It is moronic to insist on normalizing such Orwellian euphemisms when they aren't even used by the mainstream media. On another note, please stop changing the foreign fighters paragraph to an inferior version -- why would you change Pentagon to "non-independent" except to be intentionally vague? Please discuss major changes in talk.--csloat 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1at ... please refrain from language such as "moronic". 2nd ... It's not a "euphemisms" .. a "neologism" mabey ... nor is it "Orwellian". 3rd ... The Pentagon sourced information was not confirmed by an independent sourtce ... thus it's "non-independent". No other organization confirmed this particle story. 4th ... they are fighting the "Iraqi coalition" (eg., the "sovereign Iraqi government" and the "multinational forces"). Lastly ... prove that only the US military uses the phrase. There are instances of British military using it. It's likely that other coalition members use it too (I'll search around if I have time....). Sincerely, ''JDR''

Links to uses of AIF

1. I call them like I see them. 2. It is a euphemism as well as a neologism, and it is certainly Orwellian. It is, at the very least, a fine example of catechresis. 3. The pentagon information is from the pentagon, this is a much more specific and accurate representation than the ludicrous and tortured phrase "non-independent." I think Wikipedia should strive for clarity and decent writing. 4. Yes, you said that before, and it is a POV-pushing half-truth. They are fighting, first and foremost, the American occupation, as all of their propaganda clearly shows. 5. It is your burden to prove the phrase is used in a certain way, not mine to prove that it isn't. I do, however, accept your links above -- well, 2 of them anyway -- as evidence that some Iraqi commanders are participating in this abuse of language. (The other two are not as clear as to where the euphemism is coming from).--csloat 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Calling them like I see them" is not part of Wikipedia:Etiquette (and continued incivility will be noted). You are pushing "euphemism" and "Orwellian" clearly because you don't agree with the citable informaiton. It is your burden to prove the phrase is not used in a certain way, as I've proved that it is a phrase used in a certain way (see links and prior discussion)! Also ... "Non-independent" is used in the story (see citation)! It's not a wikipedia inspired "catechresis" ... and the "neologism" is from citable sources. ''JDR'' 01:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note what you like; "calling them like I see them" is simple honesty, and I believe Wikipedia etiquette involves not misrepresenting oneself. In any case the debate about whether AIF is a catechresis is a side point; had you actually read my changes before deleting, you would have noticed that I did accept the evidence you put forward, and changed the text accordingly. This will be my first revert to the compromise text; please do not change it back. You are unnecessarily deleting important information about the use of the term insurgency just so you can push this abuse of language. The fact that it is an Orwellian catechresis is not a point I made in the article, and my point is still correct as stands (all you are doing is asserting you are right without responding to my reasoning). But it doesn't matter, as I said. As for "nonindependent" - my problem is not that it is a catechresis (that was my point about AIF) but that it is simply imprecise and confusing. You have not responded to my point; where possible, Wikipedia should use terminology that is accurate and easy to understand rather than confusing and tedious.--csloat 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please STOP editing the intro as to not imply the Iraqi governement doesn't call the "insurgency" the AIF. You are asserting you are right without reason nor refernces. Your discussion's use of euphemism" and "Orwellian" (in Talk) plainly shows that you are editing with a POV (in the article). This is not "abuse of language". It's a citeable fact.''JDR'' 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my edits. My point is that the only sources using the catechresis are military -- coalition includes Iraqi, no? I have not denied that the term is used; I am only insisting that we be clear about who is using the term. It is you who is deleting the information that the term "insurgency" is used by those who oppose the insurgents. My discussion of the Orwellian euphemism shows that I care about how language is used - and abused - by those who wish to distort reality (in this case, the coalition military). And it is a fact, not a POV, that most of the "AIF" are actually Iraqi and that most of the forces they are fighting against are actually non-Iraqi. And, "it is generally agreed that" is correct; in fact, there is no credible source whatsoever that I am aware of that refutes the point that most -- roughly 90+% -- of the Iraqi insurgents are Iraqi and not foreign. The Pentagon admits this, commanders on the field admit (nay, insist!) on it, the CIA tells us this, etc. Your demand that the study be described as "non-independent" in the pentagon quote is redundant and misleading -- you put it in to cast doubt on the pentagon estimate, but if anything, the pentagon has incentive to get things wrong in the other direction (i.e, by overestimating foreign fighters). You are so insistent on planting your little flag there that you haven't bothered to notice that you are undermining the very POV you are pushing! I don't particularly care about your POV either way there but I do care about the fact that your edits make the passage demonstrably less understandable. I am going to leave it alone because I don't have time now and because your most recent edits at least addressed the readability problems you introduced. But a more careful review of the research available - as you yourself no doubt know, since you claim to be following this - will show that much stronger language about the makeup of the Iraqi insurgency will be called for. --csloat 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The September 7's news on 150 non-Iraqi Arabs is indicative of the larger non-iraqi forces. Some of the "AIF" are Iraqi and others are non-Iraqi Arabs (also the AIF is being lead by non-Iraqi Arabs). The forces the AIF are fighting against are Iraqi and non-Iraqi Non-Arabs. .... as to the "non-independent", that's what the news story stated! And the pentagon estimate doesn't have an "incentive to get things wrong in the other direction" (which BTW is a common refrain from the anti-war sector) ... the pentagon has an "incentive" to get the right figures (to sum up thier enemy the right way), ... an outside source would help comfirm this. Inaddition, term "insurgency" is not the only one used by those who oppose the insurgents ("terrorists", "criminals", and "thugs" are used quiet frequently too). ''JDR'' 04:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sentences like "The estimate by the Pentagon's own figures; in an analysis (which has not been independently analyzed) of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 non-Iraqis were confirmed as "foreign fighters" (as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey)." are so turgid as to be nonsensical. Will you please sort out subject, verb, and predicate in that sentence? That is my problem with your sentence, not your narrow-minded assumptions about my politics.
As far as the number of non-Iraqi forces, can you please point to estimates that claim they make up more than "a small percentage of the insurgency"? Of course you can't, because everyone who is reporting from there, including the Pentagon, and including US commanders in the field, is reporting that. You want to include nonsensical phrases about "an analysis which has not been independently analyzed" in order to cast doubt on the Pentagon's own figures just because they don't agree with your politics. And to add insult to injury you're willing to sacrifice basic grammatical principles in order to make your rather obtuse point. It's more than a little frustrating; this is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a political forum.
As for the term "insurgency," I never said that was the only term used by those who oppose the insurgents; please re-read my comments if you doubt that. My problem is that you keep deleting it to pretend that it is not loaded as much as any other term. (And, just to clear up the record in terms of your assumptions about my politics, I use the term insurgents myself, as well as resistance, because I oppose them -- their methods and their goals -- but I am also not so naive as to believe that they are some homogenous mob controlled by some outside invading force, nor am I so naive as to believe that you can waltz into another country and force them to accept your political system at the point of a gun without expecting many of them (especially those who were treated well by the old regime) to rise up and fight you. ) But that is neither here nor there - my proposed edits are not about opposition to or support of the insurgency; they are attempts to get things right, as in accurate, and to uphold minimal standards for writing quality.--csloat 11:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh one more thing, I must object to your claim "the AIF is being lead by non-Iraqi Arabs" -- this is quite obviously false, or at least circular -- it depends who you define as the AIF. Though I suppose it's possible you believe that there are insurgents running around in uniforms that say AIF asking Zarqawi for orders. Zarqawi's thugs do more damage and attack more civilians than the rest of the insurgents, it's true, and they have had an influence on the others, but if you think the majority of insurgents are led by Zarqawi, you are giving that psychopath a lot of credit that he doesn't deserve. When interviewed insurgents say time and time again that they don't like Zarqawi's jihadists and they are only putting up with them to get their help fighting the Americans; they say they will have to fight the jihadists to kick them out after their insurgency is successful. (That they believe their insurgency will be successful is a dangerous fantasy, but that is another issue; they may drive the Americans out but they will never control Iraq). Even Bush admits (finally) that most of the insurgents are Iraqi, though he misleadingly calls them "Saddamists." But as wrong as that is, at least it is more accurate than "AIF." In either case, to believe the insurgents are run by the foreign fighters is ignorant; they may supply most of the suicide bombers, but the majority of insurgents are not suicide bombers, and they certainly don't take orders from those guys. The Baathists and Sunni insurgents know full well that the foreign jihadists can't survive in Iraq without their permission (they are dependent on the Iraqis for food, shelter, and knowledge of where things are; they are instantly recognizable as non-Iraqi; they are not welcome in most Shiite areas, etc.)--csloat 12:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Reddi, why won't you respond to these points instead of incessantly reverting? I waited several days before fixing your ridiculous grammar in the hopes that you would do it yourself; instead you just ignored the discussion page and waited for me to change it so you could revert it. At least this time you left it as a real sentence (sort of), but you insist on reverting to one that is still redundant and nonsensical. What value is the information that the Pentagon's analysis is "not independently analyzed"? We don't need "analyzed" twice, and we already know it is the Pentagon's analysis, not an "independently analyzed" analysis. WTF? Really? How many of the Pentagon's analyses are "independently analyzed"? Should we add this to every mention of a study that comes out of the Pentagon? And do we really need the extraneous "as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey," which is clear if anyone wants to know, they just have to follow the link? Does the information that General Casey communicated this Pentagon analysis help us better understand the Iraqi insurgency in some way? Please explain why you are so insistent on these changes, which make the sentence practically unreadable.--csloat 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence: "The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in an analysis (which has not been independently analyzed) of over 1,000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 non-Iraqis were confirmed as "foreign fighters" (as stated by U.S. Ground Commander General George Casey)." is fine ... and using "ridiculous", "turgid", and other such langauge in talk or in the edit comments is not necessary and not civil. Sincerely, J. D. Redding

I have pointed out what is wrong with the sentence, you have not responded. I am not intending to offend, but the sentence is in fact turgid. It is less readable than the sentence as I had it constructed and there is no reason for redundant or extraneous information. It is my feeling that Wikipedia should at least attempt to aim for minimal standards of writing quality. I am reverting.--csloat 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Jessica stern disagrees"

Regarding ObsidianOrder's recent edit:

Large-scale terrorist attacks against civilians carried out by foreign fighters, as well as the extreme interpretation of Islam that they attempt to impose on the local population in areas temporatily under their control, have increasingly turned Iraqis against them, in some cases breaking out into open fighting between different groups in the insurgency[2][3][4]. There are signs that local Islamist insurgent groups have also increasingly caused the population to turn against them [5][6] [7] [8] A few terrorism experts disagree, for example Jessica Stern: "in the run-up to the war, most Iraqis viewed the foreign volunteers who were rushing in to fight against America as troublemakers, and Saddam Hussein's forces reportedly killed many of them. Today, according to Mr. Alani, these foreigners are increasingly welcomed by the public, especially in the former Baathist strongholds north of Baghdad."[9]

I don't think Jessica Stern disagrees that the attacks on civilians have been increasingly rejected by the Iraqi people; she is talking about the acceptance of the militant Salafi ideologies by formerly secular Baathists who are already part of the insurgency. Her point is about secular insurgents becoming Islamist, not about the popularity of insurgency among Iraqi civilians. I'd like to see both these points made without the implication that they contradict -- these are different groups of people here. Any ideas on how to do this?--csloat 12:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, unfortunately I think you're giving Mrs Stern too much credit. She does say "welcomed by the public", does she not? ObsidianOrder 23:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I re-read that last night and you are right -- I was thinking of something I had read elsewhere when I wrote the above. I mentioned this in one of my edit summaries - Stern was writing in Aug 2003; probably accurately describing the situation then, but the articles you included are more recent, and the change makes sense given the increasing murderousness of Zarqawi's jihadists.--csloat 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counterinsurgency

I think the section on the counterinsurgent attacks of coalition forces should have a separate page; it seems tangential here.

Also, Reddi, please stop putting in things that distort the realities. We've already discussed your improper use of the term "sovereignty." I don't want to debate whether Iraq is still occupied - we're not going to convince each other - but I think we should stick to the kinds of terms that are used by scholars and by the press rather than making up phrases to make our side sound more heroic. Precisely nobody refers to the Iraqi resistance as a "campaign against the new sovereignty." We should not coin such phrases in wikipedia.--csloat 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The counterinsurgent operations of Iraqi coalition forces should be on this page; it is directly related to the subject. J. D. Redding 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is related but there is too much detail for this page; it should have a separate page.--csloat 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is a Civil war.

People love to downplay reality such as this so called "insurgency." What a fancy word for Iraqis killing each other. I say we refer to the American Civil war as the Confederate Insurgency.

lol

Sign your name. Please stop moving pages like this without discussion -- there has already been much discussion and the consensus was NOT to move the page to a different name like the one you propose. Please refrain from starting pointless political flamewars, the goal of Wikipedia is not to make your point, or to defeat those with whom you disagree -- nobody cares about your political opinions. --Daniel11 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, by all means, sign your name and participate in discussion. That said, I agree that as long as Iraqi Civil War and Iraq Civil War redirect to this article the scope needs to be widened somewhat, perhaps to include a section on Sectarian violence. For example, the recent destruction of the Al Askari Mosque in Sammara which has triggered dozens of reprisal attacks on Sunni sites is not mentioned here...Reflecting the complexity of the conflict more accurately will help this article become less Americocetric. Dev1n 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I was redirected to this article when I typed in "Iraq civil war". when I type in other civil wars I get the start and end dates, but the "warring factions" seems broad enough that no end date can ever be entered. If some disgruntled Sunni commits a terrorist act ten years from now would it still be considered part of this civil war? The media has declared the start of civil war in Iraq several times including May of 2005 and recently (February 2006). Are they wrong and the start date is actually the first day of the American invasion? How can a civil war not have a start and end date? How can a civil war be going on when some of those listed as warring factions are sitting in government with their enemies? This makes no sense. Also, why is the side they are fighting (the governing body of elected representatives-whether one believes the election was legitimate or not) not represented? They have a police force and military and are central targets of the "insurgency" but are not listed as participants in this "civil war"? How does that work exactly? Apple Rancher 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgents mainly don't even target any authority, they just kill civilians of the opposing side. To this day, there have not been confrontations between larger armed groups beyond perhaps a few skirmishes. Granted, the reason for that is probably the significant US firepower that would just love to have such a valuable military target in its' sights, but the fact remains: the Iraqi insurgents target primarily civilians of the opposing faction. Historically, the term for their activities has been "ethnic clensing" and "terrorism", and never "warfare". I can't see why don't we call them for what they are and what they do. 193.77.18.195 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed opening paragraph

Removed line about the insurgency being a "terror campaign". All goes back to the old adage... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!


CanadianPhaedrus 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus


Changed to "unconventional war".... previous edit had insurgency defined as an "asymmetric war"... having never heard any conflict in history referred to as such.... changed it to something a little more pedestrian.

CanadianPhaedrus 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

see asymmetric warfare Gzuckier 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on reasons for insurgency

"Nationalists from the Sunni Arab regions are drawn from former members of the Iraqi military as well as other Sunnis. Their reasons for opposing the coalition vary between a rejection of the foreign presence as a matter of principle to the failure of the multinational forces to fully restore public services and to quickly restore complete sovereignty."

'The failure of the multinational forces to fully restore public services and to quickly restore complete sovereignty' sounds like original research/speculation and not very plausible speculation at that. As I understand it, the insurgents are deeply involved in disrupting the restoration of public services and the delay in restoration of complete sovreignty, so it doesn't seem plausible that they would be fighting an insurgency to solve a problem they themselves are largely responsible for. If there is evidence that the insurgents believe this, citations to such evidence should be placed. Otherwise this comment should be removed.--Porffiry 21:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with calling it a civil war. While it has many characteristics of a civil war it lacks some essential traits. For example, the insurgency is a broad term to group together numerous different group with various goals and agendas (if there was one major unified group which held legitimacy over large areas of the country, then I feel it would be more appropriate to call it a civil war). So im going to change it.

[edit] "Guerilla control" and Ramadi, etc.

I am changing the wording in a paragraph in the "Scope and size of the insurgency" section. It was previously very POV and partly not factual. It also doesn't have any references. I have attempted to make it more factual and less POV. Without references, I don't think it should be how it was. For example, the characterization of there being "half a dozen small forts operated by US Marines" in Ramadi is wrong. —Kenyon (t·c) 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Private contractors"

I am highly frustrated by the insistence to call hired mercenaries "defense contractors." When other nations hire private corporations to manage defense and kill people, they're called "mercenaries." When America hires private corporations to manage defense and kill people, they're called "defense contractors." Can anyone please offer a valid reason why my edits to "mercenaries" are unacceptable? —Czarangelus

Because you're wrong. They aren't hired to kill people, they are hired to do what the article said—private security for VIPs and important locations. Now, they may kill someone in the process of defending something, but they are not seeking out and destroying the bad guys like the military is, or like mercenaries do. —Kenyon (t·c) 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The word disingenuous seems to apply here. It could be argued that the Hessian mercenaries were "protecting VIPs and important locations" during the Revolutionary War. I for one don't think the Wikipedia should be ground zero for the administration's endless doublespeak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.253.112.127 (talk • contribs) 20:41, February 26, 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "Contractors" is a POV term. Can anyone come up with something between that and "mercenaries"? Guinnog 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

User:K4zem several times removed Category:Terrorism from the article. I think it is undeniable that many insurgents used terrorism tactics and so the category is warranted, I also don't understand that the Category:Revolutions doing here. A revolution is a rebellion that have won, but the Iraqi insurgents so far have not. abakharev 21:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed that category. For the same reasons I removed the terrorist reference in the opening paragraph. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" CanadianPhaedrus 22:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Following this logic we should delete the whole category Category:Terrorism. I think the term Terrorism is reasonably well-defined (although there is a huge shadow area). Taking and killing hostages among civilian populations and journalists supportive to the insurgents, deliberate bombing of mosques during the religious services can not be qualified only as terrorism, independently of our POV regarding the goals of the insurgents. abakharev 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Well I have not heard anything about the bombing of mosques during the insurgency. Doing so would seem counter-productive since the insurgents seem to be largely Sunni muslims and muslims for foreign nations.

Taking of prisoners is taking prisoner's of persons of Western origin. Im sure in the eyes of the Iraqi insurgent it is not terrorism since it is foriegn persons in their country who they have captured.

The point is: what may seem like the most henious of crimes to us may be considered a patriotic action in the eyes of an insurgent Iraqi. The bombing of an election line-up may seem like a terrorist hindrance to a democratic process... but to an Iraqi who views the "government" as only a puppet establishment of the occupying powers it is an act of resistance.

The differing views on the motives and goals of the invasion of Iraq from critics in the Western world are reason enough to omit the "terrorism" statement.... even before factoring in the views of the fighting Iraqi insurgent.

CanadianPhaedrus 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus


I move to remove all refernces to terrorism in Wikipedia then, since terrorism doesn't exist. 143.88.130.155 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling?

I want to do a copyedit on this entire page as it is loaded with typos. What is the feeling on spelling? Armour vs armor for example. I write in British English but will go along with the consensus here. It should at least be standardised! Guinnog 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV violation

"Insurgency," despite it being commonly used to refer en masse to militants in Iraq, is a POV term. We could do well to set a good example and use a less POV term like "rebel", etc. NPOV is of course Wikipedia's "unnegotiable" prime directive. It should follow that we then write articles in language which is neutral, and that using language which expresses a bias (or implies legitimacy or illegitimacy) impairs Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. -Ste|vertigo 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Insurgent" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government." Insurgency accurately describes the actions of the Iraqi insurgency. After all, they are rebelling against a now almost universally recognized government that has won and election (see Iraqi legislative election, December 2005) and now formed a cabinet (see Government of Iraq from 2006). Insurgency is the technically accurate term. --Tjss (Talk) 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
""OK, lets break down what you just said: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government" (MWD). Fine, but how is an invading force supposed to be, by any reasonable standard, considered an "authority" or "established," or even a "government?" The concept of legitimacy, which is at the root of all the above three terms, can be subjective even in an "established" "authority" (such as the U.S.), and is no doubt a bit controversial in the context of an invasion. That subjectivity no doubt extends to the subequent occupation. The legitimacy value of the "election", the "cabinet" the "prime minister" and the "government" are also subjective, and cannot be considered definitive. -Ste|vertigo 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
([10], [11], etc)
"Insurgency" applies to a revolt against a "civil authority." That authority does not have to be legit or benevolent to be an authority. Whatever you think of the new Iraqi government, it is a government operating under a constitution adopted overwhelmingly in a referandum, supported by an elected legislature, and now administered by a confirmed cabinet. In short, it is a government. I might have agreed with you if we called them insurgents during the actual invasion and before the government fell, for then the fighters were an opposing army. However, every credible source states that there is a government and the forces opposing it are an insurgency:
  • Merriam Webster defines government as "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions."
  • Dictionary.com has a similar definition: "The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority."
  • I encourage someone with access to an OED to find the defition for 'government.'
Based on available definitions, a government is an official body (like the elected government in Iraq, regardless of what one may think of the invasion) that exercies authority (makes/executes laws, as the Iraqi government is exclusively empowered to do under the constitution) over a specific area (Iraq has internationally recognized borders). It is not a legit complaint to say that the government is not a government because it was born from the invasion, since that itself is POV. Since there is a government, and the opposition forces in Iraq are fighting to overthrow it, they are an insurgency. --Tjss (Talk) 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the talk page, it's clear this issues was already voted on and so is not a legit POV claim (see Talk:Iraqi insurgency/Archive discussion of move). Unless there is strong objection from people besides Stevertigo, we should remove the POV tag. --Tjss (Talk) 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"Government" is a creation of the people. Any imposed entity cannot be considered such, and will be rejected. If its accepted, then its legitimate -"legit" as you say). If its not, then its not. You wrote "'Insurgency applies to a revolt against a civil authority.' That authority does not have to be legit or benevolent to be an authority." An authority which has opposition is a contested authority --ie. a party in a dispute. An authority which is not "benevolent" is called a "'un-benevolent authority'." [sic] The opposition to an 'un-benevolent authority' is called a rebellion and its actors are called rebels. Rebels are only called "insurgents" from the point of view of an 'un-benevolent authority', hence the term "insurgency" is a POV term. I will review the previous discussion. -Ste|vertigo 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the government is operating under a constitution approved by a vote of the people means it was not imposed. What imposed was any new government, and the people chose this one. Although it should be irrelevant to POV disputes, I opposed the invasion, so I am not trying to be partisan in my disagreement. Since you now seem to accept that the fighters are rebelling against the government, the central part of my argument has now been stipulated. What seems to be the issue is what the best word for a group of people who rebel against a government is. You seem like "rebel" while I prefer the current "insurgent." "Rebel" could be a conventional army or a one-man show, "insurgency" correctly protrays the unconventional and decentralized nature of the opposition. Since you have not provided any sources to back up your claim that 'insurgency' is a loaded term, since the current term is the most commonly used term today, and since there was already a debate a vote on this issue, I suggest you either show why this is relevant, or pick different fights. Otherwise, this POV claim is not legit (or legitimate, if you prefer the full form). --Tjss(Talk) 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"Insurgency" correctly protrays the unconventional and decentralized nature of the opposition" - this is an interpretation, and a glossy one at that. Consider that "insurgent" has connotations which are not a part of the definition - words like "insipid", "instigator", "inciteful", "insubordinate," and "insurrection" - none of which have any possibility for connoting valor or validity as the term rebel does. Remember, this is Pentagonese: Its a deliberate choice to invoke a term which sounds like something unpleasant, and to demonize "the enemy". "The enemy" was "evil" remember? And invasions are usually regarded as violations —unless of couse the are called "liberations." Sounds much nicer. All of these terms provide context for a proper definition of what the Iraqi resistance is, and allow us to have freedom to use terms which Teh Pentagon doesn't sycophantically select for us. -Ste|vertigo 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no choice but bring this to the arbitration committee. A vote has already been done on this and you have not provided a single source (other than your own intuition) to prove that it merits reconsideration. Insurgency is a technically accurate term. Provide a source to refute that if you have anything else to say, and then tell me why the previous vote is no longer valid. I am starting this article on a track (see Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes) that might lead to arbitration. --Tjss(Talk) 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the only basis of the POV tag is the term "insurgency", the tag is inappropriate. "Iraqi insurgency" is a neutral description of the Iraqi insurgents, and the article acknowledges that the insurgents call themselves by different names. -- FRCP11 03:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevertigo - This has been discussed to death before, resulting in the page move. Bottom line, while insurgency might not be perfectly NPOV, every alternative is worse. Additionally, insurgency is by far the most common term used for this worldwide. ObsidianOrder 05:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Insurgency is by far the most common term used for this worldwide." Is it? That seems like a rather overreaching claim. It may be the most common English term, but is it the same term used in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, Syriac, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, etc? -Ste|vertigo 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, there is a policy for this problem (see Wikipedia:Naming_conflict). While it is all informative,there are three principles for pages of which the title is a proper noun:
  • The most common use of a name takes precedence. Note that that a Google fight makes it clear that "insurgency" is the more common name. Other sources they recommend are media (all significant American outlets use "insurgent" and a Google News search for media sources in the UK showed they preferred insurgent to rebel by about 6-1). If someone wants to check other languages, feel free.
  • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names. Although I believe the evidence shows that insurgency is technically accurate, that debate is purely academic because insurgency is the more common name.
  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. I imagine that Stevertigo's hopes were raised by this last one, but they shouldn't be. The key part is "if neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent." As we see above, the common name is prevalent. After all, Bush, Cheney, major American and British officials, and other pro-war commentators call the American forces "liberations," although wikipedia does not refer to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as the 2003 liberation of Iraq. After all, no major media refers to it as a liberation (besides Fox News, perhaps), so invasion is the term we use.
Put simply, Wikipedia is consensus driven, and a consensus has been reached. Is there someone out there who agrees with Stevertigo? After a lengthy discussion, no one has come forward. A poll has been taken, everyone besides you, Servertigo, has pointed that out, but you have not responded to that. Also, I note that you did not bother to do any research for any of your claims, despite my earlier request that you cite a source. According to the dispute policy, this am now a step closer to arbitration, having asked for third party opinions. Let's not take this further. --Tjss(Talk) 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Baba

I chopped this sentence from the intro paragraph because derogatory slang used by some soldiers seems out of place in the introduction. However, I can't work out a better place to put it. Ashmoo 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A term used by some coalition forces to refer to rebel Iraqis is "Ali Baba," and is less a reference to Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves than it is a derogatory nickname.
True, but the current version would appear by all reason to be false. It should be in a Other terms section at the bottom. -Ste|vertigo 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates?

It appears that the "History of the insurgency" project has been abandoned since Nov. 05. Is someone still working on that? Also, things in Iraq have now degenerated into a civil war. Even Iraqi government leaders are starting to call it that. Should we have a section on this development, or even an Iraqi civil war article?--csloat 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL... following my own link, it appears we do have a civil war article.--csloat 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Iraq Civil War redirects to Iraqi insurgency. Iraqi Civil War redirects to Sectarian war in Iraq. Shouldn't the two link to the same page? Well, what am I saying? Of course they should. What should be done? VolatileChemical 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Some benevolent...uh...guy...has fixed this problem. Forget all that stuff. VolatileChemical 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As media outlets such as NBC, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are referring to the Iraqi internal conflict as "civil war"[12] [13], it's now approriate to redirect Iraq Civil War and Civil war in Iraq to the proper Iraq civil war page (or perhaps even move the latter to "Iraqi Civil War." --Oakshade 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction to this article states as a fact, without supporting evidence, that the insurgency is being waged by Iraqis. Do we know that to be a fact, or is there the possibility that the insurgency is in fact being waged by terrorist coming into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? Dullfig 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact, and the evidence is in the section on "Foreign insurgents" - even the US government's own estimates put non-Iraqis at well under 5% of insurgents. csloat 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/r/a/Talk%7EIraqi_insurgency_2334.html"