Talk:Actual effects of invading Iraq

Kevin, Thanks and congratulations for this timely page. Most of it looks about right to me, as far as it goes, although it does ignore the tremendous human suffering on both sides of the conflict.

I look forward to those opposed to your point of view adding their own evidence and extending or substantiating the statistics. David 20:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I personally like what this is saying, but I'll admit that it seems pretty POV at the moment (it just happens to match my POV). It also seems like it would turn into a forum for debate. Hopefully with lots of sources it will be able to stick around. - Eisnel

---

From the article: "one or more Islamist revolutions in Arabia: Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt - possibly supported from Iran, maybe as a distraction to avoid being invaded themselves Inaccruate as of September 2004 "

I'm pretty sure this has been proven accurate.

---

Good stuff from the 9/11 Panel: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." [1] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040616/pl_nm/security_commission_dc)

---

Have just made a small edit. Reading this page there are a significant number of issues that need to be raised:

1. Is it encyclopaedic?
2. Many people and factions were on either side of the debate. How do we decide whose predictions pre-war to include? And how do we attribute the strength of those predictions. E.G. Many anti-invasion pundits believed that there would be massive coalition casualties due to battlefield WMDs. Similarly pro-invasion actors claimed that the peace had been oplanned as carefully as the militay campaign.
3. It is hard to measure the truth of the claims, especially if they are not direct attributable quotes. For example a recent violent incident in Iraq involved some chemical shells. So it is cetain that there were WMDs in Iraq, nontheless this is not (as far as I know) quted by anyone as affeting the substantive point about WMDs.
4. The majority of the claims will take much more than 4 years to establish, if indeed they ever can be.
5. The value of the scoring is doubtful. For example is a prediction "the price of oil will rise then stabilise" worth the same as "Arabia will become more democartic".
6. What do the results of these tallies tell us, even waiving all the above problems? The predictive accuracy of two opposing camps, not the ethical values of their actions, their motivation or character, or the relative outcomes of two possible causes of actions.

Rich Farmbrough 23:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These are my first thoughts on the questions you brought up:

1. It is important information - perhaps would more appropriately be part of a larger article - but it is common here to use the advantages of a web medium and break up content convieniently across multiple pages.
2. List all the predictions, divide it by factions, if possible, perhaps put a measure of the relative size of the population that made that prediction. Consider each prediction independantly, wording it as specific to the actual prediction as possible.
3. Some claims may be left unmeasureable, and some may be left "not yet determined" That's fine.
4. Same answer as above.
5. The relative value of the events is besides the point, because of below.
6. True. Exactly the point. The predictive accuracy is what we are concerned with. It is the only thing that can really be assesed, and it is the only thing that really counts. Ethical values, motivation, character, etc. are all to abstract and fuzzy. Different assesments gave rise to different conclusions. The question is: which of those assesments were most accurate? It is usefull to know this, as it is useful to know history: to learn from mistakes. The bias of assesments can thus be adjusted, such that more accurate assessments are made in the future, and thus better decisions can be made.

BTW, I like your contributions, and the questions that you have brought up here. Kevin Baas 04:46, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Should the page be called "Actual vs predicted effects of 2003 invasion of Iraq."

Contents

1 The question of Shia rebellion seeking union with Iran 2 This is absurd 3 This is Absurd II 4 Hmm

The question of Shia rebellion seeking union with Iran

Commentary available on the web all points to this as unfounded and irrational rumor. It seems quite similar to the fear that was spread that the Pope could control JFK after the 1960 Election. Comments indicate immiscibility due to racial disparity between Iraqi and Iranian Shia; Iranian Shia are Persians; Iraqi Shia are Arabs; though this may be a specious argument, as Iraqi Shia are live alongside non-Shia Persians in Iraq, so should they be more at odds with Shia Persians? Maybe, if they fear it would make them a minority again... Iraqi Shi'ite clerics loyal to Iranian brand of Shia have reportedly moved to Iran; they're not fomenting a revolt. If Iraq moves toward joining with Iran, it will be due to political will following Shi'ite win in 2005-01-30 election, not rebellion (though of course anything can happen, but that goes for almost any topic on this page, not just this one). I say myth busted. --Blair P. Houghton 02:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd

This is not a real encyclopedia article. Read a real encyclopedia and try to find one article that looks anything like this. It's not possible. It's either propaganda or a scorecard of sorts. (It's not even fully filled out) It's not even named well. "Effects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq" Would be better. I'm sure whoever re-writes it can do better still. It should basically be rewritten from scratch as a real article.

• It's an encyclopedia article in progress as events unfold. If you find it non-factual, edit it to be factual. Otherwise, you can read it and learn the facts as well as anyone. Blair P. Houghton 21:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not whether or not it's factual that I'm bringing up, it's simply not written as an article. The synopsis isn't bad, in that regard.

• Wikipedia ain't perfec. Right now this is notes for a future article, probably one in a series cataloging the history of the Bush regime. Could take years, but until then, the information is there and not all that hard to discern despite the slovenly typography. Blair P. Houghton 23:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is Absurd II

This is the most ridiculous, most hopelessly POV "article" I've seen on Wikipedia. It's beyond help. Please, somebody put it out of its misery. Babajobu 21:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I second that. But I don't concur that it is the worst..it sure is close.--MONGO 13:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from destructive crticism. Kevin Baas^talk 13:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

It's too big and contains information too important to be removed. If you wish to work at making it less POV, go ahead, but it's actually got a NPOV-ish structure. It states a common claim, then lists the evidence that the claim has or hasn't turned out to be true. Just realize that if you start deleting facts, you're going to be the one performing the POV. Blair P. Houghton 19:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete any "facts." In fact I didn't delete anything at all. There's no point. There's no amount of plastic surgery that will turn a monkey into a man. This article should real be on anti-Iraq war website, or something, rather than on Wikipedia, which purports to provide real and dispassionate information. Babajobu 17:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you are upset that the actual effects of invading Iraq, or at least the factual information that people (such as yourself) have contributed, are unflattering to the POV that it was a good idea - which we all would like to believe, but don't shoot (or criticize) the messenger(s). Kevin Baas^talk 19:01, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

LOL...your compassion is touching. I was so upset...but then you acknowledged my suffering, and it dissipated! Now I see the truth--this is a first-rate article, and not a miserable piece of agitprop! Babajobu 19:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That kind of comment is inappropriate on wikipedia (and in civil society). Kevin Baas^talk 19:57, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop worrying about civility in Wikipedia and start worrying about it when deciding whether to kill Iraqis for votes. Blair P. Houghton 22:38, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the Iraq war was a big vote-getter. They knew how wildly popular and uncontroversial it would be in advance, which is why they launched it. It was basically the early stage of the 2004 election campaign. Sigh. I wish Saddam were still around. Iraq was an Eden in his day. Babajobu 08:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

There definitely is something wrong with this article. As it is presented right now, it will never get out of POV. Here are my suggestions. I could do the edit right now, but I thought better ask around instead of having an hours work reverted in a sec. So here goes.

• These "totals" at the end of an entry. What is the point of these? They can per definition never be anything other then POV. Since some of the subjects can never receive a definitively answer, the totals will always be a screwed view.

• Anything with an exact or estimated number has to be backed every single time with a source. No exception. Where does this number come from, how, who and what was asked, counted, listed etc.. Every number without a source is POV. Like ex. "but over 60% of Iraqis say their standard of living and well-being has declined since the invasion". This might even be true, but where does this number come from?, how many was asked?, who asked, who was asked?, when was the number acquired?. Such numbers changes at a heart beat, whom you ask and when you ask. Its ok to list such numbers, but source is vital. However since sources can be bias themselves, it would be preferable to list as many numbers as possible, from as many sources as possible.

• The status of issues. Terms like "Accurate" and "Inaccurate" seems to me as a definitely statements, that is likely not to slip past a POV tag anytime soon. I think they should be avoided whenever possible, especially on fluctuating subjects. Ex. "a drop in world tourism, especially by air, as fears of Islamist retaliations rise" is listed as "Accurate". That might even be true or where true, but without a source this is POV, and how long is it going to stay like this? Ex. Egypt’s tourism report for 2004, states it as a record year! Egypt’s 10 million or so tourists certainly do not make up for the worlds largest tourist-country, France, taking a 50% drop (just a example they never dropped 50%), but without source and year of source I’m clueless to all this. So avoid definitely statements and source, source source source source (I cannot say this enough).

• Blunt statements with no reference, source or even text cannot be listed as "Accurate" or "Inaccurate". That is undeniable POV. Ex "increased Al Qaeda recruiting." Is listed as "Accurate", with no reference, source or text??? Huh? This statement must come from somewhere, so where does it come from? Might be true might not be true, does not matter, but either subject like this is sourced or they MUST be listed with a ?. One cannot just fire off a statement like that with no backing, and list it as "Accurate" (or "Inaccurate" for that matter). An even grosser example of this is "increasing unity on the Iraq issue between France, Germany, Russia and China threatening to create a bloc on the UN Security council to block most US and UK actions"… listed as "Accurate". What???… Now I do not care if this is really "Accurate" and "Inaccurate". Does not matter. But this is major business and a major statement and it is listed as "Accurate" with absolutely not one word of text, source of reference?? Please!

• Some subject themselves seems questionable in is self. "higher oil prices long-term due to US de facto control of world supply on the markets" is listed as "Accurate". That begs the question how is the US in de facto control of the world supply of oil? Source?

Just a few ex. (there is many more). Other then this I think it’s a great article and is definitely worthwhile adding too. But I want facts, not speculations, "I think", "I heard", "common opinion is". I don’t care what the facts is as long as they are sourced and preferable plenty of them. Twthmoses 06:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)