Talk:Fallujah

Untitled
March   2007    I    updated    population    estimates    from    Iraqi    MOI    and    Coalition    Forces    to    the    current    350,000-500,000    figures    that    are    cited    regularly    in    unclassified    briefings. I   also    removed    a    bit    of    extraneous    development    of    Operation    Phantom    Fury    as    it    was    redundant    and    out    of    place,    especially    when    compared    to    the    previous    paragraph    giving    a    good    overview    of    the    recent    battle    history    of    the    city. I   also    removed    several    parts    about    the    deaths    of    American    Marines    that    were    both    highly    dated    and    too    time-sensitive    to    be    considered    truly    encyclopedic. The   citation    about    Sgt. Rafael   Peralta    being    nominated    for    the    Medal    of    Honor    was    also    rather    out    of    place. This   will    perhaps    be    more    appropriate    when    and    if    he    is    posthumously    awarded    the    medal. The   main    concern    here    for    me    is    factual    accuracy    and    doing    away    with    any    coloring    of    history    with    jingoism    or    sloganeering    by    either    side    of    this    conflict. Robotempire   11:24,    8    March    2007    (UTC)

Biased  Links
Unless   someone    can    give    me    a    good    reason    not    to,    I    am    moving    the    links    for    the    Fallujah    article    in    the    next    day    or    two. They   are    clearly    biased    and    also    belong    on    the    Phantom    Fury    page. Also,   the    city    of    Fallujah    has    been    around    for    thousands    of    years    and    the    4    links    attached    to    the    city    should    not    revolve    around    2    weapons    used    in    2004. I   looked    at    the    pages    for    Tokyo,    Dresden,    Volgograd    (Stalingrad)    and    St. Lo   and    none    of    their    external    links    dealt    with    the    battles    that    occured    there    and    destroyed    the    cities. Dresden   did    have    an    Extra    reading    section    that    pointed    to    books    about    the    firebombing    but    the    links    focused    on    the    city. Finally,   would    it    be    appropriate    for    someone    to    start    adding    links    about    how    effective    WP    was    in    Fallujah    or    how    Thermobaric    weapons    in    Fallujah    were    a    great    weapon?


 * 1) Talk:Fallujah/archive01   -    to    Nov    2004
 * 2) Talk:Fallujah/archive02   -    to    Nov    2005

My  Google    results
I   spent    15    minutes    on    Google,    researching    the    incident,    and    I'm    convinced    the    account    I    cut    was    one-sided:


 * The   origin    of    its    hostility    to    coalition    forces    dates    back    to    April    28,    2003,    when    U.S.    troops    opened    fire    on    a    group    of    up    to    200    peaceful    protestors,    killing    15.    The    soldiers    claimed    they    were    merely    returning    gunfire,    but    Human    Rights    Watch    found    that    the    bullet    holes    examined    at    the    location    were    inconsistent    with    that    story.    Moreover,    Iraqi    witnesses    at    the    scene    maintained    that    the    crowd    was    unarmed.


 * According   to    the    US    spokesperson,    Lt-Col    Eric    Nantz,    the    troops    were    being    shot    at    and    stones    had    been    thrown.    They    tried    to    disperse    the    crowd    with    loudspeaker    warnings    but    in    vain,    he    said.    Under    threat,    they    fired    back.    ...    Lt-Col    Nantz    said    that    the    troops    had    been    fired    on    from    a    house    across    the    road.    Several    light    machineguns    were    produced,    which    the    Americans    said    were    found    at    the    scene.


 * Americans   and    Iraqis    gave    sharply    differing    accounts    of    Monday    night's    shooting.    U.S.    forces    insisted    they    opened    fire    only    upon    armed    men    --    infiltrators    among    the    protest    crowd,    according    to    Col.    Arnold    Bray,    commanding    officer    of    the    1st    Battalion,    325    Regiment    of    the    82nd    Airborne    Division    (search),    whose    troops    were    involved    in    the    shooting.    "Which    school    kids    carry    AK-47s?"    Bray    asked.    "I'm    100    percent    certain    the    persons    we    shot    at    were    armed."    ...    U.S.    Central    Command    said    paratroopers    of    the    82nd    Airborne    Division    were    fired    on    by    about    25    armed    civilians    mixed    within    an    estimated    crowd    of    200    protesters    outside    a    compound    troops    were    occupying.    "The    paratroopers,    who    received    fire    from    elements    mixed    within    the    crowd    and    positioned    atop    neighboring    buildings,    returned    fire,    wounding    at    least    seven    of    the    armed    individuals,"    the    Central    Command    statement    said.    A    Central    Command    spokesman,    Lt.    Mark    Kitchens,    said    coalition    forces    "have    consistently    demonstrated    their    efforts    to    avoid    civilian    casualties    and    practice    restraint.    Any    allegations    to    the    contrary    are    simply    not    based    on    fact."

We   should    indicate    at    least    that    the    "unarmed    civilians"    thing    is    disputed. Better,   put    in    both    sides'    accounts. --Uncle   Ed    20:44,    21    Apr    2004    (UTC)

My   main    source    in    writing    the    section    you    removed    was    the    CBC. They   state:


 * [Faullujah]   erupted    as    a    flashpoint    in    the    current    conflict    on    April    28,    2003,    when    coalition    soldiers    fired    on    a    group    of    protesters    in    front    of    a    school,    killing    15    and    wounding    several    others.    The    military    said    soldiers    were    firing    in    self-defence.    Resistance    fighters    disagree.

I   agree    the    story    is    a    complex    one    and    there    is    probably    no    way    for    us    to    find    out    what    actually    happened. It   would    probably    be    best    to    do    a    full    Rashomon    and    describe    each    side's    story. What   I    was    trying    to    convey    is    that    much    of    the    population    of    Fallujah    believe    American    troops    killed    unarmed    civilians    and    that    this    has    lead    to    the    current    situation    in    the    city. -   SimonP    02:28,    Apr    22,    2004    (UTC)

To   be    realistic,    in    warfare,    civillians    are    targeted,    and    die. Targeting   may    be    right    or    wrong,    but    in    every    war,    there    are    wrong    "targets". Some   are    unarmed. That's   war. It   doesn't    mean    that    innocent    civillians    are    targeted    intentionally. In   the    first    gulf    war,    more    americans    were    killed    by    americans    than    Iraqis    (Until    the    retreat    fire). I   think    the    paragraph    should    be    restored,    with    wording    that    indicates    that    the    americans    weren't    just    trigger    happy,    but    felt    they    were    under    threat    of    death,    and    shot,    rightly    or    wrongly. Ronabop   09:49,    22    Apr    2004    (UTC)

I   incorporated    some    of    the    info    from    the    quotes    above. Please   check    for    accuracy    and    neutrality. --Uncle   Ed    12:56,    22    Apr    2004    (UTC)

Good   work,    the    new    version    is    much    better. -   SimonP    15:24,    Apr    22,    2004    (UTC)

Disclosure  discussion
I   removed    the    "disclosure"    for    several    reasons. We   really    need    a    policy    on    this    -    starting    from    the    fact    that    Wikipedia    is    part    of    a    registered    non-profit    organization    -not    part    of    Bomis. Rmhermen   18:18,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)
 * You   don't    need    a    policy    to    enforce    shell    games    that    hide    funding    sources    and    their    ideological    affiliations    -    state    laws    already    require    that    non-profits    not    hide    their    funding    sources.    Bomis    is    the    sole    ongoing    contributor    to    Wikipedia,    providing    bandwidth    and    server    space,    which    is    Wikipedia's    primary    expense.    The    disclaimer    accurately    states    these    facts,    and    does    not    misprepresent    Bomis    as    the    owner    of    Wikipedia.    If    the    Wikipedia    foundation    does    not    disclose    its    funding    affiliations    with    Bomis,    it    can    face    prosecution    under    Florida    laws.    If    you    have    several    reasons,    state    them.    Otherwise,    since    Bomis    is    the    primary    sponsor    of    Wikipedia,    and    Bomis    directs    visitors    to    sites    that    raise    money    for    1st    Marine    activities    in    Iraq,    disclosure    is    both    appropriate    and    consistent    with    typical    ethical    practices.    CNN    still    discloses    its    affiliations    with    former    owners    when    its    stories    involve    those    sources,    even    though    management    has    distanced    itself    from    those    sources.    I    moved    the    disclosure    to    the    talk    page    to    accompany    your    unexplained    revert    of    a    meaningful    contribution.    TruthSayer    18:31,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)


 * A   disclosure    would    only    be    useful    if    Bomis    had    any    sort    of    editorial    control    over    Wikipedia.        It    does    not    and    most    users    have    no    idea    what    Bomis    is    or    what    it    does.    Also    when    did    USMC    operations    start    being    funded    by    web    donations?    -    SimonP    18:59,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)


 * A   disclosure    would    be    useful    for    me    because    it    would    have    spared    me    having    to    discover    these    relevant    funding    affiliations    on    my    own.    An    interest    in    a    better    understanding    of    when    the    1st    Marines    started    relying    on    private    funding    solicited    through    on-line    sources    is    irrelevant    to    the    consideration    of    direct    evidence    that    Bomis    sponsors    Wikipedia    and    that    Bomis    affiliates    itself    with    sites    raising    funds    for    war-time    propaganda.    It    is    especially    useful    in    the    context    of    an    article    about    the    flash-point    of    a    likely    explosion    of    resistance    in    Iraq.    Until    this    disclosure,    the    article    only    reported    that    "Marines"    (not    which    division)    discovered    things,    but    did    not    qualify    that    the    information    was    based    solely    on    1st    Marine's    claims    to    have    discovered    these    things,    repeated    in    freindly    news    sources.


 * The   fact    that    "most    users    have    no    idea    what    Bomis    is    or    what    it    does"    -    especially    what    it    does    for    Wikipedia        -    suggests    articles    that    overlap    Bomis'    propaganda    interests    are    uniquely    in    need    of    a    disclosure.    A    disclosuer    could    be    best    developed    in    articles    describing    Bomis,    but    lacking    any    other    way    to    report    the    information,    it    is    specifically    relevant    to    articles    in    which    the    1st    Marines    tactical    and    propaganda    interests    are    considered,    and    in    which    Bomis    is    specifically    directing    its    visitors    to    sites    that    support    that    specific    unit's    propaganda    interests.


 * For   guidance    on    when    disclosures    are    typically    offered,    developed    from    the    CNN    example,    Ted    Turner    has    long    since    surrendered    editorial    control    over    CNN,    but    CNN    continues    to    offer    disclosures    in    stories    that    report    Turner's    activities,    including    the    activities    of    foundations    he    endowed    and    organizations    they    fund.


 * Bomis'   contribution    to    Wikipedia's    editorial    and    administrative    direction    is    debatable.    Administrators    have    continually    turned    to    Bomis'    owner    for    guidance    and    absolution    in    execution    of    policies.    His    work    under    the    title    "God    King"    for    several    years    encouraged    new    Wikipedia    leaders    to    use    cult-like    language    that    discouraged    opposition    to    his    views,    and    to    disparage    those    who    offer    counterveiling    policies.    Bomis's    owner    Jim    Wales    set    the    direction    away    from    a    peer-reviewed    encyclopedia,    and    presents    as    a    primary    pundit    against    the    pheasibility    of    reviewed    encyclopedias    in    numerous    interviews.    That    policy,    driven    by    Bomis'    desire    for    rapid    development,    made    Wikipedia    more    available    to    those    who    present    election-time    and    war-time    misinformation.    Though    other    editors    ostensibly    correct    misinformation,    there    is    no    procedure    to    assure    correction    and    when    corrections    are    made,    it    can    happen    hours,    days    or    weeks    after    the    misinformation    has    been    served    and    forked    to    readers    and    to    other    web    services.    During    election    or    war-time    propaganda    campaigns,    a    few    hours    of    misinformation    can    be    useful.    Bomis    set    the    stage    on    which    such    misinformation    can    be    presented.    Bomis'    CEO    also    states    in    interviews    he    hopes    to    profit    from    commercial    release    of    a    Wikipedia    CD,    which    instead    could    provide    revenue    to    advance    the    independant    non-profit    interests    of    the    Foundation.


 * Wikipedia   Foundation    could    easily    distance    itself    from    Bomis    by    finding    other    contributors    to    fund    purchases    of    bandwidth,    back-up    and    primary    servers,    house    servers    and    server    maintenance.    Failing    to    do    so,    it    is    in    keeping    with    common    journalistic    practices    to    disclose    who    pays    for    publication    --    Bomis.com.    Perhaps    a    savy    investigator    needs    to    review    Wikipedia    Foundation's    501(c)(3)    and    state    non-profit    reports    to    assure    that    its    primary    source    of    revenue    -    in-kind    donations    from    Bomis.com    -    are    accurately    disclosed.    The    foundation    could    act    in    good    faith    by    publishing    those    reports    under    the    Wikipedia    namespace.


 * In   response    to    the    question    of    when    US    forces    started    using    private    funding    to    support    propaganda    operations,    the    practice    goes    way    back,    but    was    widely    reported    during    the    Iran/Contra    debate,    when    missles    were    privately    traded    to    hostile    nations    in    exchange    for    money    used    to    support    illegal    Contra    activities    in    Central    America.    The    use    of    on-line    fundraising    might    be    a    new    tactic,    which    again    points    to    a    need    for    disclosure.    TruthSayer    20:01,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)


 * This   is    all    still    irrelevant    in    that    no    one    who    helped    write    this    article    is    paid    by    or    associated    with    Bomis.    -    SimonP    19:52,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)


 * Who   pays    for    the    printing    of    a    newspaper    is    as    relevant    to    some    readers    as    is    who    wrote    the    articles.    Journalists    typically    concur    it    is    not    the    publishers'    decision    to    decide    when    fiscal    affiliations    are    relevant;    instead    journalists    typically    concur    the    information    is    best    provided    to    readers    who    can    individually    make    judgements    about    what    is    relevant    to    them.    TruthSayer    20:01,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)


 * From   an    article    in    American    Journalism    Review:
 * The   online    financial    publication    TheStreet.com    discloses    its    investors    and    business    partners    and    posts    its    stringent    conflict-of-interest    policy    on    stock    ownership    by    employees.
 * CNET:   The    Computer    Network    discloses    its    investors    and    business    partners    and    plans    to    post    its    in-house    code    of    conduct.    The    model    ethics    code    covers    employee    freebies    and    stock    transactions,    disclosure    of    the    company's    affiliations    in    news    stories,    even-handed    use    of    hyperlinks    and    how    to    forthrightly    correct    errors    online.


 * I'm   looking    for    some    more    sources    on    ethical    practices    and    standards    of    disclosure    in    new    media.


 * Bomis'   general    interest    that    would    suggest    a    need    for    disclosure    include    a    policy    of    rapid    development    that    resulted    in    a    lower    standard    of    credibility    in    Wikipedia,    coupled    with    Bomis    interest    in    profiting    from    rapid    development    of    Wikipedia.    Bomis'    support    for    rapid    development    of    a    new    information    format    that    lacks    the    methodically    enforced    standards    of    credibility    in    better    funded    sources,    while    also    promoting    military    alternatives    to    traditional    regional    information    sources    suggests    it    might    best    be    left    to    readers    to    decide    the    implications    of    Bomis    critical    role    in    funding    Wikipedia's    ongoing    operation.    TruthSayer    20:17,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)


 * From   the    American    Society    of    Magazine    Editors    new    ethics    guidelines    for    on-line    publications,    developed    largely    without    discussion    of    very    new    media    such    as    Wikipedia,    deal    primarily    with    the    relation    between    advertisers    and    on-line    content:


 * To   protect    the    brand,    editors/producers    should    not    permit    their    content    to    be    used    on    an    advertiser&#8217;s    sitewithout    an    explanation    of    the    relationship    (e.g.&#8220;Reprinted    with    permission&#8221;).


 * 6.E-commerce   commissions    and    other    affiliate    fees    should    be    reported    on    a    disclosure    page,    so    users    can    see    that    the    content    is    credible    and    free    of    commer-cial    influence.    Exact    fees    need    not    be    mentioned,    of    course,    but    users    who    are    concerned    about    underly-ing    business    relationships    can    be    thus    reassured.
 * TruthSayer   comments:Bomis    links    to    Wikipedia    in    the    same    sidebar    that    links    to    the    Marine    fundraising    sites,    but    does    not    disclose    in    that    space    either    its    creation,    on-going    in-kind    support    or    future    profit    interets    in    Wikipedia.


 * A   website    should    respect    the    privacy    of    its    users.If    a    site    intends    to    collect    information    about    its    visi-tors&#8211;&#8211;whether    the    data    will    be    disseminated    to    thirdparties    or    not&#8211;&#8211;it    must    offer    users    a    chance    to    decline    if    they    choose,    through    an    &#8220;opt-out&#8221;    option.    As    part    of    its    privacy    policy,    the    site    should    explain    its    use    of    cookies    and    other    data    collection    methods    and    tell    what    it    intends    to    do    with    the    information    it    gleans.
 * TruthSayer   comments:Wikipedia    offers    no    assurance    Bomis    does    not    share    its    router    logs    with    intelligence    interests    supporting    the    Marines    in    Iraq.    Bomis    pro-military    stance    raises    a    suspicion    it    could    be    inclined    to    use    information    about    Wikipedia    contributor    interests,    especially    in    controversial    articles    about    the    Middle    East,    to    serve    the    military    interets    of    one    side    in    that    conflict.    Bomis    appears    to    be    a    pro-Israel    site,    by    the    content    of    advertisements    on    its    pages.    Israel    has    a    long    history    of    tracking    journalists'    activities    to    identify    the    location    or    identity    of    its    opponents,    including    some    so    identified    then    targeted    for    assassination.    Wikipedians    might    need    to    know    every    keystroke    they    enter    goes    through    Bomis'    T1    lines    and    routers    before    it    arrives    at    the    Wikipedia    server.    Bomis    has    made    no    assurance    of    privacy    to    Wikipedia    users,    and    has    not    promised    to    keep    private    user    information    beyond    that    that    appears    in    the    SQL    database.    This    lack    of    privacy    assurance    implies    a    need    for    disclosure,    especially    on    pages    where    Bomis    favored    military    units    are    discussed.

How   does    privacy    fit    into    this,    how    does    Bomis'    supposed    links    to    the    military-industrial    complex    threaten    the    privacy    of    its    writers? -   SimonP    20:56,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)


 * Did   you    actually    read    the    comments    and    attempt    to    follow    the    reasoning    of    professional    associations    that    have    developed    standards    for    privacy    assurances    in    on-line    publications?    Your    question    has    already    been    answered    in    the    comments    above.    And    the    comments    are    not    about    the    "military-industrial    complex"    as    you    snidely    misconstrue,    but    rather    specifically    about    an    ongoing    practice    of    some    forces    in    the    region    to    track    journalists    activities,    and    specifically    about    Bomis's    access    to    router    logs    that    are    not    available    to    anybody    who    does    SQL    dumps.    Are    you    asserting    that    Wikpedia    has    no    need    to    review    its    position    vis-a-vis    industry    standards    regarding    privacy    and    disclosuer    of    business    affiliations?    JillP    21:07,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
 * Jill,   this    is    a    typical    administrative    practice    at    Wikipedia    of    harrassing    contributors    with    questions    while    refusing    to    respond    to    substantive    debate,    especially    when    the    debate    might    in    any    way    tarnish    the    reputation    of    this    less-than-credible    information    source.    This    tactic    was    well    developed    in    Stalinist    show-trial    purges    and    in    Maoist    ritual    forced    self-criticisms.    Billigerant    propaganda    is    easy    to    recognze.    This    practice    offers    ample    evidence    of    Jim    Wales    influence    on    the    project,    in    which    all    opponents    are    treated    as    evil    and    rhertorically    shot    on    site.    TruthSayer

I   do    not    believe    Wikipedia    is    a    member    of    any    professional    associations. -   SimonP    21:43,    Apr    29,    2004    (UTC)

Do   you    hold    in    contempt    the    ethics    developed    over    several    decades    by    professionals    who    have    dedicated    their    lives    to    pursuing    the    endeavor    you    seek    to    administer    as    a    hobby? Is   it    about    whatever    you    can    get    away    with? Do   you    have    anything    substantive    to    add    to    this    discussion,    are    you    on    a    power    trip    protected    by    your    status    as    an    administrator? SaltyDog   21:46,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
 * Apparently   the    later,    based    on    his    five    reverts    in    contravention    of    the    three-revert    rule,    and    his    refusal    to    respond    to    the    substance    of    concerns    raised    in    this    discussion.    TruthSayer    21:49,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)

This   is    one    of    the    weirder    discussions    I    have    seen    lately. Isn't   it    remarkable    how    three    new    user    accounts    with    the    same    writing    style    have    all    appeared    at    once    to    argue    the    same    points    on    the    same    article? I'm   not    sure    what    could    we    say    that    would    provide    conclusive    proof    that    we're    not    part    of    a    giant    Israeli/CIA/Alien    Abduction    plot. Here's   a    hint:    if    you    are    this    paranoid,    it's    reasonable    to    assume    that    anything    you    type,    anywhere    on    the    Internet    is    tapped,    logged,    and    sent    to    the    black    helicopters    in    real-time. --   The    Anome    21:50,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)


 * No,   understanding    the    truth    about    the    operation    of    political    intelligence    requires    a    little    more    savy,    some    homework,    and    some    patience    for    juveniles    who    hold    in    contempt    legitimate    widely    discussed    privacy    concerns.    One    might    start    with    a    read    of    Body    of    Secrets    by    James    Bamford,    to    get    an    idea    of    the    signint    processing    capacity    of    the    NSA.    Then    one    needs    to    review    actions    under    the    Homeland    Security    Act,    develop    a    general    knowledge    of    on-line    security    issues    in    the    context    of    current    Internet    technology,    then    -    to    cover    gaps    in    reasoning    unfillable    due    to    what    we    cannot    possibly    know    about    what    other    people    do    -    learn    a    little    bit    about    the    political    affiliations    of    on-line    services    one    uses.    Nope,    the    last    black    helicopter    I    saw    was    a    really    cool    McDonald    Douglas    MD520N    NOTAR,    which    I    quickly    identified    as    belonging    to    a    local    retailer,    a    fact    I    discovered    by    walking    into    the    airport    and    asking    the    manager    about    that    nimble    helicopter    conducting    manuevers    he    found    very    inappropriate    in    his    airspace.


 * Oh,   look,    somebody    has    been    so    busy    harrassing    other    contributors    they    haven't    bothered    to    write    articles    about    the    topic    of    all    those    red    links    above,    subjects    about    which    they    likely    know    nothing    anyway.


 * Hysteria   is    probably    a    lot    easier    for    you    than    is    substantive    contributions    to    a    meaningful    debate,    Mr.    "Anome".    What    part    of    the    conjectured    scenarios    are    you    calling    paranoid?    That    Israel    historically    tracks    journalists    to    locate    opposition    fighters?    That    Wales    has    access    to    router    logs    not    available    to    the    general    public?    That    industry    standards    encourage    promises    of    privacy    instead    of    bizarre    insults    lobbed    at    those    who    raise    legitimate    privacy    concerns?    You    seem    to    hold    in    contempt    any    discussion    that    goes    against    the    orders    of    the    beloved    God    King    of    your    cult.    Cult    allegiance    is    a    very    sad    alternative    to    intellegent    discussion.    Why    not    go    ride    your    imaginary    Black    Helicopter    back    to    your    fictional    UFO    and    leave    discussion    of    serious    publishing    standards    to    the    grown-ups,    okay?    Your    childish    insults    offer    little    currency    in    mature    debate.    JillP    22:15,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)

Being a Brit with no horse in this race, I have to say I think at least _some_ disclaimer should be present in the article. It emphasises WP's neutrality and allows me/others to research further if interested. If I hadn't happened to stumble across this talk page, I wouldn't have known. That said, perhaps something a little briefer, eg:


 * Full Disclosure: The main provider of bandwidth for Wikipedia (Bomis) does have a financial connection to the U.S. 1st Marine Division which is responsible, in part, for the siege of Fallujah. For more information please see the Talk Page.

That way, those who are intersted know to look. Those who are not don't get a wall of ominous text. I wouldn't even object to describing it as a "tenuous financial link", just don't hide it entirely. 86.181.160.187 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Misinformation  littering    Wikipedia
When   the    juvenille    followers    of    Jim    Wales'    God    King    cult    get    over    their    fear    of    information    that    would    disclose    Wales    right-wing    Zionist    ideology,    the    following    paragraph    needs    to    be    inserted    to    replace    the    one    that    erroneously    calls    the    former    special    forces    soldiers    (and    action    adventure    television    producer,    in    one    case)    employs    for    KB&R.


 * The   US    asserted    that    it    hopes    for    a    negotiated    settlement    but    will    restart    its    offensive    to    retake    the    city    if    one    is    not    reached.    Military    commanders    said    their    goal    in    the    siege    was    to    capture    those    responsible    for    the    March    31    killings    of    four    veterans    of    US    special    forces    groups    employed    by    Blackwater    Security    Services.    US    forces    were    unable    to    determine    in    early    April    whether    those    shown    in    news    images    attacking    the    company's    elite    security    team    had    remained    in    the    city    or    fled.

JillP


 * FWIW Any time I see "right-wing Zionist" in a comment, I immediately assume the poster has an agenda and quite often stop paying attention. Without making any comment on the facts you present, you're likely alienating readers just by sounding so fervent and entrenched in your position. I humbly suggest that a more neutral approach would help you. And no, I didn't actually read the argument 86.181.160.187 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

JillP,  SaltyDog,    TruthSeeker    -    all    sock    puppets?
Are   these    three    users    all    sock    puppets? Check   their    editing    records...    or    perhaps    the    black    helicopter    brigade    has    mobilised    en    masse    and    wound    up    here? --   ChrisO    23:07,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
 * I   think    that    was    TruthSayer,    but    yes,    the    history    and    writing    style    should    make    it    obvious    that    they    are    the    same    person.    And    I    might    add    that    the    style    and    tactics    remind    me    somewhat    of    User:Bird.    --Michael    Snow    23:23,    29    Apr    2004    (UTC)
 * Sounds   about    right.    Perhaps    someone    can    do    a    fun    log    check.    -    Fennec    00:34,    30    Apr    2004    (UTC)
 * I   rather    liked    the    way    that    at    one    point    they    started    talking    to    one    another.    --    The    Anome    07:22,    30    Apr    2004    (UTC)

Some  bias    and    innaccuracy.
There   are    quite    few    innacurate    information    or    biased    views    stated    in    the    article. First   of    all,    the    "Fatal    protest    incident"    says:

On   the    evening    of    April    28,    2003,    a    crowd    of    200    people    celebrating    the    birthday    of    Saddam    Hussein    defied    the    Coalition    curfew    and    gathered    outside    a    school    building    to    protest    against    the    US-led    coalition    forces    who    had    occupied    the    school.

During   the    protest,    it    is    alleged    stones    were    thrown    at    US    troops. Fifteen   unarmed    Iraqi    civilians    died    from    US    gunfire. There   were    no    coalition    casualties. /quote

There   are    a    number    of    mistakes    here:

-The   article    states    that    the    crowd    was    celebrating    the    birthday    of    Saddam    Hussein. This   is    far    from    truth,    and    such    a    claim    should    either    be    removed    or    a    note    should    be    added,aclearing    that    this    is    merely    an    allegation.

-The   article    states    that    there    were    allgations    about    stones    being    thrown    at    U.S.    troops. Then   says    Fifteen    unarmed    Iraqi    civilians    died    from    US    gunfire. There   is    technically    nothing    inaccurate    in    this    point,    the    word    "allegation"    was    used,    and    the    fact    was    layed    out. But,   there    is    bias    in    it,    it's    what    people    call    "half-truths",    a    fact    is    said,    nothing    technically    worng    with    it,    but    other    related    and    important    facts    are    ignored. It   should    be    stated    that    testimonies    from    eye-witnesses    said    that    US    soldiers    started    shooting    with    no    appearant    reason. The   American    story    says    that    the    troops    were    firing    back    at    gun    fire    that    came    from    some    roofs,    but    eye-witnesses    deny    that. Any   ordinary    person    who    reads    this    article    would    think    that    those    Saddam    supporters    started    attacking    U.S.    troops    so    they    had    to    open    fire    in    self-defense.

When   you    quote    allegations    of    one    side    and    ignore    the    other    sidess    story,    you    are    essentially    promoting    the    story    of    the    first    side.

Unfortunatly,   since    the    incedent    is    more    than    a    year    old,    it's    kind    of    hard    to    get    links    to    reports    about    the    incident. For   the    time    being,    try    this: http://eatthestate.org/07-18/IncidentatFallujah.htm

The   article    also    some    times    tries    link    the    resistance    in    the    city    to    Saddam    Supporters    and    Forigen    elements    and    even    "gangs",    this    is    very    biased,    as    those    are    only    the    claims    of    the    occupation. It   should    be    stated    that    a    large    chunck    of    the    resistance    is    made    out    of    the    local    ordinary    people    who    feel    they    have    a    duty    to    resist    the    American    occupation    of    thier    country.

Etymological  fantasy
"There   is    some    evidence    that    millennia    ago    a    branch    of    the    Euphrates    divided    off    at    that    point,    and    that    this    is    the    source    of    the    name,    but    today    that    branch    has    disappeared."    This    fantasy    etymology    is    matched    by    the    impossible    geography,    perhaps    related    to    the    canal    that    joins    the    Tigris    to    the    Euphrates? Wetman   04:48,    21    Oct    2004    (UTC)
 * Why   do    you    question    this?    I    got    the    origins    of    the    name    from    an    article    in    JSTOR    on    the    region    in    Persian    times.    -    SimonP    05:36,    Oct    21,    2004    (UTC)

The Euphrates DID branch at Fallujah, sending an arm to join the Tigris at Kadhimain/Khadhimiyya. This branch silted up and had to be dredged frequently in the Sasanian and the Abbasid time. The branch was known as the "Royal Canal" or King's Canal or locally as the "Nahar Shahi" (a mix Aramaic-Persian construct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.184.225 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

L2bairaq.jpg
I   removed    L2bairaq.jpg    from    the    article,    which    seemed    to    serve    no    real    purpose    except    (I    think)    to    elicit    an    emotional    response. Simoes   14:47,    8    Nov    2004    (UTC)


 * I   returned    the    picture    because    civilian    casualties    are    relevant    to    military    assaults    on    civilian    centers.    --Alberuni    16:58,    8    Nov    2004    (UTC)


 * If   you    mean    relevant    to    battles    between    conventional    and    guerrila    forces,    when    the    guerrillas    use    civilians    as    human    shields,    then    I    vigorously    agree.    No    matter    how    precise    the    GPS-guided    bombings    are,    some    civilian    non-combatants    are    going    to    be    killed    if    they    remain    in    mosques    or    hospitals    used    by    insurgents    as    hideouts    or    staging    areas.    Hmm.    I    guess    I    should    write    about    US    military    "use    of    force"    doctrine    or    rules    of    engagement    in    land    warfare.    --user:Ed    Poor    (deep    or    sour)    16:15,    Nov    10,    2004    (UTC)


 * Some   people    seem    to    confuse    high    technology    killing    with    high    morality.    --Alberuni    16:25,    10    Nov    2004    (UTC)

NPOV  Dispute
Okay,   I    attempted    to    make    some    edited    to    correct    what    I    thought    were    pov    problems,    but    all    of    them    were    reverted    without    discussion    (with    the    exception    of    the    image    removal). Here   are    my    complaints:

User:Simoes   13:32,    8    Nov    2004    (UTC)
 * Use   of    scare    quotes    with    objective    terms    (e.g.,    "security    contractors")
 * Inclusion   of    blockquote-length    editorial    commentary    from    an    Internet    blogger
 * Inclusion   of    an    image    with    no    obvious    purpose    other    than    to    elicit    an    emotional    response
 * Reference   to    an    uncited    Newsweek    article    purporting    that    Pres.    Bush    gave    the    order,    "Let    heads    roll."


 * I   think    we    should    be    very    wary    of    including    specific    casualty    numbers,    quotes,    etc.        No    one    knows    precisely    what    is    going    on    in    Fallujah    and    both    US    military    and    local    Iraqi    sources    are    immensely    biased.        I    do    think    the    image    can    stay    for    the    present.    At    least    until    one    more    representative    is    found,    as    my    guess    is    most    casualties    are    not    photogenic    young    girls.    -    SimonP    18:57,    Nov    8,    2004    (UTC)


 * If   you    bring    changes    to    long-established    content    to    Talk    first,    they    can    be    discussed    and    a    consensus    can    be    reached    about    editing.    If    you    just    edit    them    to    suit    your    POV,    someone    is    likely    to    revert    in    the    interest    of    maintaining    NPOV.


 * Scare   quotes    are    bad    and    should    be    deleted.    But    should    the    article    give    a    balanced    impression    that    security    contractors    are    civilians,    mercenaries    -    or    both?
 * What   specific    block-length    comments    are    you    trying    to    delete    and    why?
 * I   responded    to    the    picture    concerns.    I    think    the    picture    of    an    injured    Falluja    girl    is    a    factual    representation    of    the    effects    of    military    attacks    on    Fallujah,    a    civilian    area.    Therefore    it    is    valid.    Removing    it    seems    intended    to    whitewash    the    civilian    casualties    ofUS    military    operations.    Would    you    prefer    a    photo    of    the    crater    caused    by    a    2000    lb    bomb?    Or    a    nice    photo    of    some    US    Marines    saluting    in    the    desert?
 * The   Newsweek    Bush    quote    is    from    a    Juan    Cole    article    and    I    can't    find    it    elsewhere.    I    agree    it    is    possibly    spurious    and    should    be    deleted.    --Alberuni    19:16,    8    Nov    2004    (UTC)


 * The   blogger    quote    I    was    referring    to    is    the    one    by    Rahul    Mahajan.


 * As   for    the    scare    quote    issue,    I    think    calling    them    "security    contractors"    (without    "civilian"    in    front    of    the    term)    is    sufficient    in    that    it    lets    the    reader    decide    their    civilian/mercenary/whatever    status.


 * I   agree    with    SimonP's    statement    with    regards    to    the    picture;    it's    not    really    representative.    If    I    were    writing    a    critique    of    the    present    Fallujah    incursion,    I    would    definitely    include    that    photo.    Maybe    a    broader    hospital    pic,    or    one    of    people    carrying    wounded    off    from    a    combat    area,    would    be    more    appropriate    here?
 * Simoes   19:48,    8    Nov    2004    (UTC)


 * Yes,   the    photo    must    go.    Its    purpose    is    not    informative,    but    emotive.    --mav


 * I   disagree.    Iraqi    civilian    casualties    are    a    fact    of    US    military    activity.    This    is    just    one    representative    picture    of    a    victim    of    US    war    in    Fallujah.    It    is    relevant    and    factual.    Deleting    such    evidence    under    guise    that    it    is    emotive    could    be    considered    an    attempt    at    censoring,    diminishing,    denying    or    concealing    the    real    human    costs    of    US    military    operations.    --Alberuni    23:35,    8    Nov    2004    (UTC)


 * The   photo    does    not    provide    any    information;    it    elicits    an    emotional    response    which    is    designed    to    support    a    particular    POV    about    the    conflict.    The    same    would    be    true    of    a    photo    of    US    soldiers    giving    cheering    children    candy.    --mav


 * Is   it    representative    picture?    Or    is    it    an    image    of    the    type    of    person    that    is    most    likely    to    have    an    emotional    effect    on    the    audience?        Something    like        might    be    more    honestly    representative.    -    SimonP    00:07,    Nov    9,    2004    (UTC)


 * I   don't    see    much    difference    in    news    value    or    emotional    content    between    a    photo    of    a    wounded    Iraqi    boy    or    a    wounded    Iraqi    girl.        --Alberuni    02:26,    9    Nov    2004    (UTC)

Of   course,    US    Secretary    of    Defense    Rumsfeld    said    that    civilians    have    been    given    plenty    of    time    to    get    out    of    the    way,    so    whatever    happens    to    them    is    their    fault. "   "Innocent    civilians    in    that    city    have    all    the    guidance    they    need    as    to    how    they    can    avoid    getting    into    trouble,"    Rumsfeld    told    a    Pentagon    news    conference.    He    referred    to    a    round-the-clock    curfew    and    other    emergency    measures    announced    by    interim    Prime    Minister    Ayad    Allawi. "There    aren't    going    to    be    large    numbers    of    civilians    killed    and    certainly    not    by    U.S.    forces,"    Rumsfeld    said." Why   civilian    casualties    are    important    to    the    Americans    (not    for    humanitarian    reasons,    of    course):    "One    risk    of    using    overwhelming    force    to    regain    control    of    rebel-held    Fallujah    is    that    civilian    casualties    -    nearly    inevitable    under    the    circumstances    -    could    trigger    a    backlash    elsewhere    in    Iraq    and    in    the    Arab    world    against    the    U.S.    forces    and    their    Iraqi    allies." 
 * Another   photo    of    an    Iraqi    civilian,    a    child,    injured    by    the    US    military    assault    on    Fallujah.

Assault
Well,   the    assault    has    started. Should   we    do    some    heavy    newslike    coverage    now,    or?


 * Only   major    events    in    the    assault    need    be    covered    I'd    think.        Actually,    I    was    hoping    to    move    the    Seige    to    a    new    page,    seeing    as    how    it's    taking    up    so    much    of    the    article.    Oberiko    14:16,    10    Nov    2004    (UTC)

Photo  removed    for    being    too    Emotive    -    Thats    Bullshit
Regarding   the    removal    of    the    Boy    killed    as    being    too    emotive    -    Well    Enclycopedia    Bratinnaca    showed    the    twin    towers    collapse    they    are    being    emotive    too    -    The    Photograph    of    dead    children    Killed    by    Amercian    forces    is    not    imotive    but    informative    -    Just    if    Children    are    killed    by    terroists    in    the    USA    will    be    showen    all    over    the    world    by    media    if    this    were    to    happen    -    Come    off    it    folks    -    Human    beings    are    the    same    -    Are    we    all    workinking    hard    at    wikipedia    as    agents    for    the    neo    conservatives    in    Washington    -    We    here    to    report    facts    without    censor    and    do    not    follow    the    line    of    any    Country    engaged    in    an    illeagal    war    against    another    which    so    far    has    cost    100,000    lives    YES    FOLKs    I    do    not    listen    to    Fox    News    to    understand    the    world    instead    I    read    the    Guardian,    listen    to    the    BBC    and    read    their    website    and    the    Independent    Newspapers    as    well    as    a    host    of    newspapers    both    left    wing    and    right    wing    from    diffrent    countries    -    I    study    first    hand    reporting    from    Iraqi    blogs    and    Al    Jazeera    Arab    news    which    has    won    prestegious    awards    by    Western    judges    in    Europe    for    un    baised    reporting.

Those   days    are    gone    when    control    of    the    news    were    in    the    hands    of    the    few    and    powerful    -    Wikipedia    a    democratic    information    resource    is    an    example.

If   Wikipedia    become    a    forum    for    those    who    follow    the    USA    line    then    I    think    the    thousands    of    its    contributors    beetr    start    another    non    baised    Wikipedia

Lalit   shastri India

Civilian  casualties
There   is    nothing    wrong    with    reporting    on    advocacy    campaigns    relating    to    civilian    casualties. The   US    military    sometimes    refers    to    death    and    injury    to    non-combatants    as    collateral    damage    and    requires    local    commanders    to    "minimize    such    collateral    damage    to    civilian    facilities    in    populated    regions." 

Probably   the    most    successful    PR    tactic    used    when    opposing    a    US    military    campaign    (such    as    Operation    Phantom    Fury)    is    to    emphasize    and    publicize    civilian    casualties,    especially    to    women,    teenagers    and    cute    attractive    children. This   is    because    Americans    and    American    servicemen    are    highly    moral    -    as    compared    to    most    foreign    terrorists,    anyway. It   takes    a    steely    resolve    to    make    the    mental    effort    to    distinguish    between    accidentally    casualties,    or    casualties    caused    by    enemy    use    of    civilans    as    human    shields    --    and    deliberate    or    negligent    targeting    of    civilians.

The   claim    that    there    are    "no    combatants    in    Fallujah"    exploits    American    sensitivites    and    challenges    its    resolve. It's   basically    the    same    strategy    that    got    the    US    to    abandon    South    Vietnam    to    the    North    --    the    pull-out    led    to    over    1,000,000    civilan    deaths:    purges    by    the    victorious    Communists    and    deaths    on    the    high    seas    by    the    "boat    people".

I   don't    think    high    tech    means    high    ethics    --    but    as    a    highly    ethical    man    involved    in    high    tech,    I    am    gravely    concerned    about    this    matter. --user:Ed   Poor    (deep    or    sour)    18:11,    Nov    10,    2004    (UTC) --

Is  this    Article    about    Fallujah?
It   seems    to    be    two    articles    in    one. We   have    a    nice    article    on    the    Battle    of    F.    (Operation    Phantom    Fury),    why    discuss    the    battle    here? Paul,   in    Saudi    06:18,    11    November    2005    (UTC)
 * I   agree,    This    page    should    be    mainly    history    and    pre-war    info.    There    should    be    a    brief    section    on    the    war    with    a    link    to    the    main    article    and    a    brief    section    with    what    info    is    available    on    the    current    condition    in    the    city.    We    should    treat    this    article    like    they    did    over    on    the    New    Orleans    page.    The    article    should    be    about    the    city    before    the    disaster,    with    a    brief    section    on    current    events.    Nobody    has    enough    information    to    write    about    what    the    city    is    like    now.    We    don't    even    know    the    population.    Seabhcán    11:14,    11    November    2005    (UTC)
 * I   have    moved    the    bulk    of    the    war    related    material    to    US    occupation    of    Fallujah    and    copied    the    below    talk    topics    to    Talk:US    occupation    of    Fallujah.    I    hope    that    this    will    allow    more    space    to    war    and    occupation    information,    and    also    more    space    to    develope    this    article    on    the    history,    people,    culture,    etc.    of    the    city    of    Fallujah.    Seabhcán    10:47,    14    November    2005    (UTC)

New  information,    napalm

 * 1) http://rawstory.com/news/2005/U.S._Army_publication_confirms_United_States_1109.html
 * 2) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm
 * 3) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/164137/436

--Striver   19:54,    12    November    2005    (UTC)


 * White   Phosphorus    is    not    Napalm.    It's    a    *totally*    different    substance,    and    bears    little    to    no    resemblance    to    napalm    in    deployment,    use,    or    effects.    MK    77    (still    in    use)    is    much    closer    to    napalm    than    WP,    which    is    how    many    folks    seem    to    be    confused.    Ronabop    09:53,    14    November    2005    (UTC)

--Barking_Mad   17:34,    7th    April    2006]]    (GMT)

Id   argue    how    successful    the    initial    attempts    to    take    back    Fallujah    were. One   led    to    a    Sunni    ex-Saddam    general    'taking    over',    which    led    some    elements    of    Fallujah    to    celebrate    their    success    in    keeping    out    the    US    troops    who    they    perceived    as    'occupying'    Iraq.

The  white    phosphorus    debate
There's   a    new    idea    floating    around    that    WP    (White    Phosphorus)    is    somehow    an    illegal    chemical    weapon. In   the    interest    of    somehow    reducing    possible    edit    wars,    it    should    probably    be    noted    that:


 * 1.   WP    used    to    light    a    battle    area    would    not    be    illegal    use    of    the    substance.
 * 2.   WP    does    not    meet    any    of    the    conventional    classifications    of    chemical    weapons,    as    it    is    usually    used    as    an    incendary    or    lighting    weapon.
 * 3.   Use    of    WP,    Napalm,    or    any    other    incendary    device    (or    even    bullets)    intentionally    against    civilians    is,    indeed,    considered    a    war    crime.
 * 4.   However,    mere    use    of    WP,    explosives,    etc.    in    a    field    of    battle    is    not    usually    considered    a    war    crime.
 * 5.   Balancing    that    out,    use    of,    say    the    chemical    di-hydrogen    monoxygen,    or    any    other    chemical,    with    *intent*    to    use    chemistry    in    order    to    *damage    a    large    number    of    troops    through    the    effects    of    that    chemical*,    may    be    considered    a    war    crime.
 * 6.   However,    this    probably    doesn't    mean    that    di-hydrogen    monoxygen    should    be    banned    from    use    in    battle.

The   "shake    and    bake"    debate    seems    to    focus    on    asserting    that    use    of    WP,    in    any    context,    would    be    a    war    crime,    in    an    effort    to    criminalize    any    use    of    WP. Ronabop   09:53,    14    November    2005    (UTC)

I   have    seen    a    video    available    online    which    was    produced    by    an    Italian    news    outlet    that    focuses    on    our    usage    of    "Willie    P". Nothing   appears    to    be    getting    criminalized. In   fact,    it    would    seem    accurate    to    say    that    Iraqi    civilians    have    been    burned    to    the    bone    by    the    stuff. I'm   not    aware    of    something    which    could    burn    somebody    as    badly    as    these    corpses    were    burned. And   I    don't    mean    totally    burned. I   mean    that    whichever    part    of    their    body    came    in    contact    with    this    chemical,    was    burned    incredibly,    while    the    rest    remained    intact. Personally,   I    take    no    issue    with    our    usage    of    "Willie    P". I   say    drop    it    all    day    every    day. See   the    trick    here    is,    they    don't    call    it    White    Phosphorus. It   has    some    crazy    military    name    like    M347BA. Or   something    to    that    effect. Therefore   they    can't    be    considered    war    criminals,    when    they    are    in    fact    droping    the    same    chemical. This   Italian    news    outlet    included    filmed    testimony    by    former    US    soldiers    who    served    in    this    region. I'm   not    going    to    call    these    guys    liars,    and    neither    should    you. I   think    that    a    mention    of    our    possible    usage    of    this    chemical    should    be    included. It   might    be    used    to    light    up    the    battlefield,    but    that    still    doesn't    take    away    from    the    fact    that    it    is    going    to    completely    burn    through    anything    it    touches.


 * I,   too,    have    seen    the    video.    We    even    have    an    article    on    it:    Fallujah%2C_The_Hidden_Massacre.    The    video    repeatedly    asserts    actions    of    a    criminal    nature.    Numerous    corpses    are    shown,    with    advanced    necrosis    of    various    tissues    (blackened    and    rotting).    However,    for    some    reason,    they    (the    filmmakers)    seemingly    connected    numerous    corpses,    including    ones    that    were    documented    (in    other    sources)    as    having    been    sitting    in    a    river    rotting    away,    (which    is    one    way    a    body    can    look    horribly    burned    without    clothing    looking    the    same    way)    with    WP.    As    far    as    naming    concentions,    I    think    you    may    be    confusing    the    use    of    MK-77/almost-napalm    with    WP...    and    while    MK-77    and    Napalm    are    very    similar,    MK-77    and    Napalm    are    two    totally    different    substances.    I    didn't    call    them    liars,    so    I'm    not    sure    why    you    would    insinuate    as    such.    Ronabop    03:57,    16    December    2005    (UTC)

I've   been    trying    to    add    information    about    the    use    of    white    phosphorous    by    U.S.    troops    as    an    anti-personnel    weapon    during    the    attack    on    Fallujah. In   my    last    attempt,    I    used    this    article    as    a    reference:        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm My   comments    and    reference    were    deleted    and    I    was    accused    of    vandalism. Why   is    this    not    acceptable? 124.99.205.23   16:04,    24    July    2007    (UTC)

I   have    removed    the    piece    about    children    deaths    connected    to    chemicla    weapons,    as    there    was    no    prove. The   Italian    news    outlet,    should    also    be    covered    with    doubt    as    the    orginsation    is    a    communist,    who    have    a    POV    issue. —Preceding   unsigned    comment    added    by    Crt43    (talk    •    contribs)    18:20,    4    May    2008    (UTC)

Category:Destroyed  Cities
From   the    US    occupation    of    Fallujah    article:
 * The   city    is    now    largely    ruined,    with    60%    of    buildings    damaged    or    destroyed,    and    a    population    at    30%-50%    of    pre-war    levels.

If   you    look    at    the    list    of    other    cities    tagged    with    the    category    there    are    several    cities    that    were    in    presumably    better    shape    than    Fallujah    after    their    "destruction." With   the    exception,    possibly,    of    Pompeii,    which    was    buried    under    lava    and    volcanic    ash,    one    needn't    expect    a    city's    "destruction"    to    include    100%    destruction    of    it's    dwellings    and    100%    dispersal    or    extermination    of    its    residents. --AStanhope   11:30,    7    December    2005    (UTC)

Following  gunfire    from    the    demonstrators,    soldiers    from    the    82nd    Airborne    stationed    on    the    roof    of    the    building
This   is    presented    as    fact    but    is    disputed.

Herne   nz    07:18,    16    July    2006    (UTC)


 * this   is    a    load    of    bollocks    -    Posted    by:    83.70.212.63


 * The   idea    that    the    82nd    Airborne    fired    first    is    absurd,    but    since    the    history    books    will    put    this    fact    down    as    "disputed,"    wikipedia    has    little    choice    but    to    do    the    same.    As    for    what    really    happened:    Part    of    the    problem    was    that    Iraqis    commonly    protest    with    guns,    and    we    soldiers    do    not    take    kindly    to    people    who    mob    infront    of    our    bases    shooting.    That    being    said,    the    82nd    did    not    fire    on    the    crowd    simply    because    they    had    weapons    and    were    firing    into    the    air.    I    spoke    with    many    of    these    soldiers    the    day    after    the    event    and    the    crowd    started    by    shooting    into    the    air,    but    as    the    protest    continued    people    began    firing    shots    first    over    the    school    house    and    then    actually    at    the    school    house.    If    anything,    the    soldiers    should    be    honored    for    having    enough    restraint    to    not    fire    on    the    crowd    simply    for    being    stupid    enough    to    show    up    with    guns.    -    Atfyfe    01:14,    19    November    2006    (UTC)

Use  of    Cluster    bombs
I   am    going    to    remove    all    references    to    the    use    of    cluster    munitions    inside    the    city    of    Fallujah. Cluster   bombs    are    ineffective    in    an    urban    environment    and    no    country    would    use    cluster    munitions    on    an    area    where    their    infantry    would    be    walking    through    right    after. It   defies    military    logic    to    do    so    and    the    only    evidence    given    is    leftist    websites    that    don't    back    their    claims. They   just    throw    the    term    out    there    because    it    grabs    headlines    and    they    assume    that    if    WP    was    used    then    cluster    bombs    must    be    too. --Looper5920   22:11,    19    August    2006    (UTC)
 * Actually,   a    quick    google    search    reveals    that    journalists    including    Salman    Pak    and    Dahr    Jamail    cite    testimony    from    eyewitnesses    and    doctors    in    hospitals    treating    victims    who    state    that    cluster    bombs    were    in    fact    used    in    Fallujah.        This    information    should    be    included    whether    or    not    it    is    reasonable    to    claim    that    such    use    "defies    military    logic";    the    military    logic    at    work    here    really    isn't    the    issue.        (In    fact,    at    least    one    American    soldier,    Lance    Corporal    Jesus    Alberto,    was    killed    by    a    US    cluster    bomb    in    an    earlier    raid,    so    we    know    for    a    fact    that    the    "military    logic"    of    which    you    speak    was    not    always    followed    during    this    operation).--csloat    22:28,    19    August    2006    (UTC)
 * Dahr   Jamail    is    the    least    credible    source    you    could    have    used.        He    is    as    far    from    a    reporter    as    you    will    find.        He    has    his    agenda    and    he    pushes    it.        He    mentions    cluster    bomb    use    right    after    he    notes    that    the    CIA    might    be    responsible    for    the    car    bombs    in    Iraq.        Cluster    bombs    were    used    in    2003    during    the    invasion,    which    is    when    the    Marine,    LCpl    Suarez,    died    but    they    were    not    used    in    Fallujah.        The    Asia    Times    article    in    the    google    search    talks    of    A-10s    raining    cluster    munitions    on    the    city.        There    were    not    even    A-10s    in    Iraq    at    the    time.    Also    I    don't    think    Salman    Pak    is    a    reporter.        Last    I    checked    it    was    a    training    camp    in    Iraq.--Looper5920    22:44,    19    August    2006    (UTC)
 * Uh,   no;    the    "least    credible    source    I    could    have    used"    would    have    been    appeals    to    my    own    conception    of    "military    logic"    without    any    sources    at    all.        Given    the    balance    between    the    two,    I'd    say    Jamail    wins.        I    disagree    with    your    assessment    of    him,    by    the    way,    but    that    is    neither    here    nor    there    -    he    certainly    is    a    reporter,    and    you    can    take    up    the    issue    of    his    credibility    as    one    on    the    Dahr    Jamail    page.        Simply    stating    that    he    has    an    agenda    is    not    helpful;    if    you    don't    have    any    evidence    that    he    is    lying    about    these    facts,    you    are    just    poisoning    the    well.        And,    let's    be    clear,    the    information    is    not    from    him,    but    from    doctors    and    eyewitnesses.        Salam    Pax    is    what    I    meant    to    say,    not    Salman    Pak.        I    see    no    evidence    refuting    the    claim    that    cluster    bombs    -    or    A-10s    for    that    matter    -    were    in    Fallujah    other    than    your    assertions;    sorry,    but    I    think    the    published    record    outweighs    those    assertions.        I    mentioned    Suarez    not    as    evidence    of    anything    specific    to    Fallujah,    but    to    refute    the    sole    piece    of    evidence    backing    up    your    claim,    which    is    the    assertion    about    "military    logic."        If    the    military    acted    logically    with    regard    to    cluster    bombs    in    Iraq,    it    would    not    be    killing    its    own    men.--csloat    23:23,    19    August    2006    (UTC)
 * Doing   a    little    more    research,    there    are    other    confirmations    of    cluster    bombs    used    in    fallujah.        Staff    Sgt.    Jimmy    Massey    gave    an    interview    to    the    Sacramento    Bee    (14    May    2004)    p.    E3    stating    that    they    were    used    in    Fallujah,    that    they    were    used    "everywhere"    in    and    out    of    cities,    and    that    one    of    his    buddies    lost    a    leg    to    one.        And    this    from    the    Minn.    Star    Tribune,    while    it    doesn't    specifically    say    they    were    used    in    Fallujah,    it    again    refutes    your    logic    that    the    military    would    avoid    dropping    them    in    civilian    areas    where    the    infantry    would    be    walking    around    afterwards:    "Iraqi    civilian    casualties    resulting    from    cluster    bombs    are    well-documented.    In    a    report    in    December,    USA    Today    found    that    U.S.    forces    had    fired    hundreds    of    cluster    bombs    into    urban    areas,    killing    dozens    of    civilians,    while    other    sources    give    much    higher    casualty    estimates."(6    Feb    05    p.    1AA)        And    at    a    press    conference    with    Kimmitt    (14    May    2004)    it    is    stated    that    "The    ordnance    disposal    units    of    the    ICDC    in    Fallujah    have    been    reporting    that    they've    been    finding    cluster    bombs    in    Fallujah.    Could    you    confirm    or    deny    whether    the    U.S.    Marines    used    cluster    bombs    in    Fallujah    during    the    fighting    last    night?"        Kimmitt    does    not    address    the    ICDC    report    but    only    says    "We    have    no    reports    of    Marines    using    cluster    bombs    during    this    operation."        It    is    unclear    whether    he    is    denying    that    the    ICDC    reported    that    or    whether    he    is    responding    to    that    report    saying    that    his    own    sources    did    not    report    it.        So    at    best,    reports    of    the    use    of    cluster    bombs    are    disputed.        CNN    Correspondent    Karl    Penhaul    started    his    report    from    Fallujah    on    November    9    2004:    "The    sky    over    Falluja    seems    to    explode    as    U.S.    Marines    launch    their    much-trumpeted    ground    assault.    War    planes    drop    cluster    bombs    on    insurgent    positions    and    artillery    batteries    fire    smoke    rounds    to    conceal    a    Marine    advance."        And    apparently    Al-Jazeera    reported    that    the    US    was    using    cluster    bombs    in    Fallujah    on    April    8    and    April    15    2004;    both    stories    were    picked    up    by    BBC    and    Tass;    another    al-Jazeera    story    from    July    31    made    the    same    claim    and    it    too    was    picked    up    by    BBC.        The    July    31    report    included    as    sources    both    eyewitnesses    and    interviews    with    local    hospitals.        I    think    we    need    to    say    that    these    are    the    things    that    have    been    reported,    and    that    US    sources    deny    it    (if    so).        Simply    deleting    it    is    not    helpful.--csloat    23:59,    19    August    2006    (UTC)
 * Sorry   to    keep    hammering    this,    but    here    is    some    more    evidence.        AP    reports    26    April    2004:    "A    spokesman    for    an    Iraqi    delegation    from    the    violence-gripped    city    of    Fallujah    on    Monday    accused    U.S.    troops    of    using    internationally    banned    cluster    bombs    against    the    city    and    said    they    had    asked    the    United    Nations    to    mediate    the    conflict.    Mohammed    Tareq,    a    spokesman    for    the    governing    council    of    Fallujah    and    a    member    of    the    four-person    delegation,    said    U.S.    military    snipers    were    also    responsible    for    the    deaths    of    many    children,    women    and    elderly    people."        April    17    2004    Economic    Press    Review    reports:    "American    F-16    warplanes    are    blitzing    the    Al-Julan    residential    area    in    Al    Fallujah    50    kilometers    west    from    Baghdad    with    cluster    bombs."        Xinhua    reports    from    fallujah    on    5    April    04:    "Early    on    Monday,    six    people    were    killed    and    others    wounded    when    US    troops    clashed    with    militants    in    Fallujah,    witnesses    said.    The    US    soldiers    cordoned    off    the    city    and    blocked    all    the    roads    leading    to    Fallujah    as    the    clashes    erupted    between    unknown    militants    and    the    US    troops    before    the    dawn    for    more    than    two    hours,    according    to    the    witnesses.    The    US    troops    bombed    some    residential    neighbourhoods    with    rockets    and    cluster    bombs,    killing    six    people    and    wounding    others,    the    witnesses    elaborated."        On    the    other    side,    State    Dept    spokesman    Richard    Boucher    (talk    about    a    source    with    an    "agenda    to    push")    described    the    April    9th    Al-Jazeera    report    as    "totally    false,"    but    it    is    not    clear    what    he    is    basing    that    on.        His    briefing    was    April    27    2004    --    by    then    we    have    another    al-Jazeera    report    plus    the    Xinhua    report,    and    of    course    we    have    other    reports    later    that    year    (in    July    and    then    November    with    the    big    offensive    then).        Oh    on    Sept    25    2004,    Xinhua    reports    another    incident    confirmed    by    an    eyewitness:    "The    toll    would    possibly    hike    since    a    number    of    citizens    were    being    buried    under    the    rubble    of    a    targeted    house    in    the    al-Julan    district    in    western    Fallujah,    local    resident    Abdul    Rahman    told    Xinhua    by    telephone.    'The    house    was    destroyed    by    cluster    bombs    dropped    by    US    warplanes,'    he    said."        And,    you    won't    like    this    one,    but    another    Dahr    Jamail    article    on    16    November    2004    reports    from    another    official    source:        "The    Red    Cross    official    said    they    had    received    several    reports    from    refugees    that    the    military    had    dropped    cluster    bombs    in    Fallujah,    and    used    a    phosphorous    weapon    that    caused    severe    burns."        You    may    not    like    Jamail,    but    this    is    the    Red    Cross,    reported    by    Inter    Press    Service/Global    Information    Network.        Sorry    about    the    lack    of    links    but    I'm    looking    through    a    private    database    (lexis/nexis)    for    these    reports.    (It's    a    lot    easier    to    find    official    sources    without    your    searches    being    polluted    with    blog    nonsense).        So    we    have    the    Iraqi    Civil    Defense    Corps,    the    Red    Cross,    Human    Rights    Watch,    and    a    handful    of    eyewitnesses,    doctors    from    hospitals    looking    at    first    hand    evidence    of    injuries,    and    journalists    claiming    that    cluster    bombs    were    used    on    Fallujah;    on    the    other    side    we    have    Boucher    and    Kimmitt.        I    think    at    the    very    least    the    different    sources    should    be    reported.--csloat    00:13,    20    August    2006    (UTC)

Requested  protection
I   requested    Full    Protection    because    there    has    been    no    discussion    during    this    edit    war. Cheers.--Burzum   22:47,    31    October    2006    (UTC)

Edit  War    Discussion
User_talk:Freepsbane,   the    WP:V    policy    states:
 * 1.   Articles    should    contain    only    material    that    has    been    published    by    reliable    sources.
 * 2.   Editors    adding    new    material    to    an    article    should    cite    a    reliable    source,    or    it    may    be    challenged    or    removed    by    any    editor.
 * 3.   The    obligation    to    provide    a    reliable    source    lies    with    the    editors    wishing    to    include    the    material,    not    on    those    seeking    to    remove    it.

Your   edits    fail    to    meet    #2    and    #3,    therefore    they    are    in    violation    of    WP:V. I   have    reverted    for    this    reason. Cheers.--Burzum   07:20,    1    November    2006    (UTC)

Thank   you    for    bringing    the    issue    up,    if    you    take    a    look    at    my    last    update    you    can    see    that    multiple    sources    have    been    added    to    support    the    final    sentence,    describing    the    population    exodus    from    Fallujah    in    the    aftermath    of    the    military    operations    and    it’s    current    status    as    a    ghost    town. However   the    upper    sections    of    that    paragraph    claming    Fallujah’s    pacification    (with    the    exception    of    the    link    reporting    Anbar’s    capture    by    the    insurgents.)    is    totally    unsourced,    and    goes    against    current    reports    of    skirmishing    in    Falujah. I   suggest    that    if    we    go    about    removing/revamping    we    ax    that    section    first    and    then    wory    about    the    common    knowledge/sourced    parts    afterwards. Freepsbane   21:02,    1    November    2006    (UTC)
 * Your   link        doesn't    describe    population    loss    or    the    destruction    of    infrastructure,    nor    does    it    connect    that    with    a    reduction    in    the    strength    of    resistance    (it    just    describes    torture    by    insurgents    which    I    think    is    extraneous    for    this    particular    section).        Link    #9    is    broken    so    I    can't    evaluate    it.        And    watching    the    middle    link   ,    the    video    certainly    does    describe    the    population    loss    and    destruction    of    infrastructure    but    it    doesn't    connect    it    with    a    reduction    in    the    strength    of    resistance    compared    with    the    other    security    measures    implemented    as    you    noted.        Unless    I    missed    something    in    the    video    or    one    of    the    links    (including    the    broken    one)    I    don't    see    the    verification    needed    to    back    up    your    statement.        In    my    opinion,    we    can    state    that    the    infrastructure    was    damaged    and    that    Fallujah    became    a    ghost    town    but    little    else    unless    we    find    more    information.        I    don't    yet    see    enough    information    to    state    that    Fallujah    is    now    peaceful    or    violent.        I'll    do    some    searches    and    hopefully    we    can    come    up    with    a    consensus    or    find    some    new    references.        If    all    else    fails    we    can    ask    for    an    WP:RFC    to    get    more    eyes    on    this    issue    because    it    is    a    fairly    important    part    of    recent    history.        Sorry    that    I    had    to    ask    for    protection,    but    I    felt    it    was    getting    a    little    silly.        Cheers.--Burzum    21:31,    1    November    2006    (UTC)

Thanks   for    taking    the    correct    step    to    halting    that    edit    war,    I    should    have    known    better    than    to    be    so    stubborn. At   any    rate    as    you    were    the    most    level    headed    editor    in    this    affair    it    may    be    best    if    you    were    to    rewrite    the    statement    for    us.Freepsbane    00:28,    8    November    2006    (UTC)


 * I'll   perform    some    updates    pretty    soon    (as    I    finally    got    some    free    time).        If    you    have    any    information    on    the    points    that    I    listed    above    that    you    could    clear    up    it    would    be    helpful,    especially    my    confusion    on    including    the    RAI    News    link.        And    if    you    still    have    any    major    problems,    an    RFC    would    be    useful    (though    we    should    lay    out    the    areas    that    we    have    conflict    with    in    detail).        Cheers.--Burzum    21:09,    8    November    2006    (UTC)

Off  Topic
"This   article    is    about    the    city    of    Fallujah    in    Iraq.    For    detailed    information    on    the    events    of    war    in    Fallujah,    see    US    occupation    of    Fallujah."

There's   nearly    more    unsourced    material    about    possible    mustard    gas    use    recent    events    involving    US    forces    than    the    entire    history    of    city!

Shouldn't   all    that    be    in    US    occupation    of    Fallujah? Everytime   01:36,    19    April    2007    (UTC)
 * I   agree    with    you    that    the    balance    is    wrong    at    the    moment.    And    I    have    a    big    problem    with    some    of    this    unsourced    material,    much    of    which    I    flagged    up    for    citation    in    my    recent    edit.
 * This   article    should    be    a    much    more    broad    look    at    the    history,    geography,    economy    etc    of    Fallujah.    However,    I    do    think    it    will    be    impossible    to    write    a    useful    article    without    mentioning    in    some    detail    the    events    that    have    shaped    the    life    of    the    city    since    1990.    Not    so    much    detail    as    at    present,    though    -    there    is    a    separate    article    for    that,    as    you    point    out.    Furthermore,    I    think    we    need    to    keep    a    beady    eye    on    NPOV.    --    TinaSparkle    08:34,    19    April    2007    (UTC)

WP,  Nerve    Gas,    etc.
Removed   all    references    to    white    phosphorous,    nerve    gas,    mustard    gas,    etc.,    as    it    is    utterly    and    completely    unverifiable. "Eyewitness   accounts    state..." with   no    citations    or    secondary    sources    is    not    encyclopedic    fact. I   am    all    for    presenting    facts    that    portray    the    U.S.    or    American    military    in    a    negative    light    if    they    are    true,    but    let    us    not    devolve    into    speculative,    emotive    imaginings    that    may    or    may    not    bear    any    resemblance    to    reality.Robotempire    15:05,    29    April    2007    (UTC)
 * The   most    recent    edit    adds    back    in    a    cited    WP    reference    that    also    highlights    that    WP    is    not    a    banned    substance.    Cheers.    Robotempire    09:42,    29    July    2007    (UTC)

Video
Just   added    video,    shown    on    almost    every    news    channel    in    the    world.--Sean-Jin    03:17,    4    October    2007    (UTC)

UPDATE:   Video    removed    from    Youtube    because    of    "Copyright    Violation"   ,    apparently    not    because    it    shows    a    large    group    of    civillians    being    killed    by    an    F-16...... —Preceding   unsigned    comment    added    by    69.226.251.239    (talk)    22:20,    11    October    2007    (UTC)

Copyright  Violation
It   looks    like    half    of    the    section    "Return    to    Fallujah"    is    taken    directly    from    the    Independent    article    of    the    28th    January,    2008    word    for    word. I   think    it    should    be    removed    or    at    least    summarised. Secondly,   the    second    half    of    that    section    doesn't    cite    its    sources,    but    it    looks    like    it    has    been    lifted    directly    from    another    article    as    well. Lawrencema   (talk)    03:15,    23    March    2008    (UTC)

Update:   It    looks    like    the    second    article    is    word    for    word    from    http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan011204.htm. If   both    articles    aren't    rewritten,    they    should    be    removed. Lawrencema   (talk)    03:26,    23    March    2008    (UTC)


 * I   concur.        Removed    section.        It    was    added    by    by    Hisham    5ZX (talk ·    contribs)    on    21:00,    11    March    2008    (UTC).--Burzum    (talk)    05:52,    23    March    2008    (UTC)

Protection
Due   to    the    constant    edit    war    going    on,    I    suggest    that    the    article    be    protected. At   the    moment    the    article    is    being    reverted    nearly    every    day. Lawrencema   (talk)    01:03,    7    May    2008    (UTC)

Latest  reverts
I   made    a    massive    revert    to    a    very    old    version    of    the    article    which    does    not    include    every    beneficial    change    made    since. I   presume    the    massive    revert    I    made    may    have    eliminated    some    good    changes    to    the    article,    but    sentences    like    "The    Chemical    weapons    caused    Congenital    deformation    between    every    five    children    Born    in    fallujah."--added    by    one    of    those    IPs,    completely    unsourced    and    probably    made    up,    and    poorly    written--cannot    stand. In   addition    to    these    sorts    of    additions,    lots    of    text    was    removed    over    that    time--some    perhaps    appropriate    such    as    to    a    forked    article--and    many    numbers    were    changed    without    references. See   the    diff    between    my    massive    revert    and    the    latest    status    quo. If   you    want    to    glean    through    the    entire    article,    go    for    it,    but    otherwise    I    think    the    long    revert    should    remain    or    at    least    form    the    baseline. —Centrx→talk •   03:45,    8    May    2008    (UTC)    (copied    and    slightly    altered    from    User    talk:Looper5920)

Dream  Land    and    the    MEK    Compound
Now   I'm    not    certain    if    this    informations    is    verifiable,    and    I    don't    want    to    ammend    the    page    if    I    don't    have    a    source,    but    I    know    first    hand,    that    Dream    Land    (translated    from    the    Arabic)    was    a    resort    located    just    to    the    East    of    Fallujah,    and    within    a    mile    or    two    (undetermined    distance)    from    the    former    training    ground    for    the    Iranian    Freedom    Fighters    also    known    as    Mujahedin-e-Khalq   ,    who    were    given    safe    harbor    by    Sadam    Hussein. I've   given    citation    to    other    corroborating    evidence    found    on    wikipedia.

164.214.1.54   (talk)    20:17,    27    October    2008    (UTC)Nick


 * Well,   I'm    glad    you    posted    here    before    editing.    Both    locations    already    have    entries;    perhaps    you    could    help    improve    them?    Camp    Baharia    redirects    to    Dreamland    (Fallujah,    Iraq)    and    Camp    Fallujah    redirects    to    MEK    Compound    (Fallujah,    Iraq).    Highspeed    (talk)    18:17,    28    October    2008    (UTC)

Clean-up  of    citation    formats    (January    2009)
Now   that    this    page    is    semi-protected,    I    am    attempting    to    clean-up    the    formatting    of    in-line    citations/footnotes. I   am    not    checking    their    accuracy    or    vetting    that    they    are    even    in    the    right    place. Just   trying    to    get    it    standardized    so    as    to    make    it    easier    for    follow-on    editing...    which    I    hope    others    will    attempt. Highspeed   (talk)    21:56,    21    January    2009    (UTC)

not  only    Marines    died    in    Fallujah
The   article    says    "95    American    Marines    were    killed". It   is    not    true,    because    out    of    95    American    troops    killed    several    were    from    US    Army    -    not    Marines.

examples: http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=7955 http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=7945

find   more    here:    http://icasualties.org/Iraq/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=11-2004        —Preceding    unsigned    comment    added    by    62.121.122.15    (talk)    21:48,    2    February    2009    (UTC)
 * Fixed.   Lawrence,    M.J.    (talk)    22:00,    2    February    2009    (UTC)

Fallujah's  Location    on    the    Map    is    Wrong
The   little    map    of    Iraq    with    the    red    pog    denoting    Fallujah's    location    in    Iraq    is    incorrect. Currently,   it    has    Fallujah    listed    where    Ramadi    is    located    (check    the    Ramadi    page    -    the    grids    are    the    same).

Fallujah   should    actually    be    a    bit    further    east,    roughly    mirroring    Ramadi's    location    on    the    northeastern    side    of    Lake    Habbaniyah,    on    the    other    side    of    the    river,    IIRC    (it's    been    a    few    years    since    I've    been    there).

I   don't    have    the    exact    coordinates    of    the    place    since    I    can't    access    Google    Earth    from    my    NMCI    computer    -    can    somebody    fix    this    please?

Thanks, 214.15.205.121   (talk)    02:46,    18    April    2009    (UTC)

Birth  defects?
I'm   not    sure    if    this    belongs    in    the    article,    as    the    story    seems    to    be    mostly    anecdotal,    but    the    BBC    has    reported    that    there    have    been    unnaturally    high    levels    of    birth    defects    in    Fallujah    since    2004:. What   do    other    editors    think? Robofish   (talk)    13:03,    4    March    2010    (UTC)


 * Add   it.    Counteraction    (talk)    23:37,    24    July    2010    (UTC)


 * There   have    been    a    number    of    reports    of    an    increase    in    birth    defects,    including    the    Guardian    on    22    Jan    2010    and    the    Independent    at    the    end    of    July    2010,    the    headline    from    which,    "...    Fallujah    worse    than    Hiroshima"    seems    to    have    inflamed    the    blogosphere.    The    comparison    with    Hiroshima    may    have    originally    come    from    a    report    apparently    presented    to    the    UN    in    March    2008.    The    idea    that    the    cause    of    the    birth    defects    and    illnesses    is    depleted    uranium    (DU)    crops    up    during    the    past    three    years    on    various    sites,    but    as    best    I    can    see    doesn't    seem    to    have    any    credible    mention    other    than    the    piece    in    the    Independent    (and    there    it's    a    quote    from    a    long-term    campaigner    against    all    things    nuclear).    It's    hard    to    see    what    use    DU    enhanced    weapons    would    be    against    people    and    buildings,    or    why    similarly    high    levels    of    birth    defects    shouldn't    have    been    reported    from    areas    where    DU    is    known    to    have    been    used.


 * It   appears    to    me    that    the    cause    is    much    more    likely    to    be    dioxins    or    something    similar,    together    with    the    lack    of    clean    water    and    sanitation.    The    symptoms    reported    are    very    similar    to    those    that    arose    from    Agent    Orange    in    Vietnam    and    in    the    environs    of    the    Bhopal    disaster.    Close    to    Fallujah    there    are,    or    at    least    were,    three    chemical    plants.    Fallujah    2    produced    chlorine    and    production    had    been    re-established    in    2000.    It's    by    no    means    implausible    that    the    birth    defects    were    caused    by    organochemicals    from    one    of    these    plants,    but    there    doesn't    seem    to    be    much    information    about    bombing    or    the    damage    they    sustained.    Davy    p    (talk)    15:39,    14    August    2010    (UTC)

Er,   check    out    the    last    paragraph    of    Fallujah,    with    an    academic    study. Rd232   talk    16:16,    14    August    2010    (UTC)


 * Yes,   it    doesn't    make    sense.    The    claim    is    made    that    the    change    in    birth    sex-ratios    is    similar    to    that    which    occurred    in    Hiroshima.    As    a    quick    search    would    show,    radiation    does    not    significantly    change    the    sex-ratio.    See,    for    example,    British    Journal    of    Cancer    or    Journal    of    Human    Genetics    1966;    18:328-38    or    Atomic    Bomb--A    Study    of    Aftermath


 * The   'academic    study'    mentioned    appeared    in    a    pay-to-publish    Swiss    journal.    Its    lead    author    is    well    known    for    alarmist    conjectures.    Richard    Wakeford's    editorial,    "What    to    believe    and    what    not    to    believe",    in    the    Journal    of    Radiological    Protection    referenced    at    the    end    of    Chris    Busby's    page,    gives    a    relevant    overview.Davy    p    (talk)    23:33,    18    August    2010    (UTC)

Greatest Battles in Human history not mentioned at all in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_battle_of_fallujah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah the first and second battle of Fallujah are probably the greatest and bloodiest battles in human history similar in comparison to Stalingrad.Why are they not even mentioned in this article.What is wrong with Wikipedia.Talk Pages are always better than the articles. Mention these battles in the article or provide links to them as they are the greatest part of the history of Fallujah.Ht67890 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Cancers, popular press & WP:MEDRS
The paragraph on cancers is a clear violation of the WP:MEDRS guideline on medical sources. Specifically what it does is violate the section on popular press by using a popular press article as the source for the conclusions of a published academic study. For instance, "the types of cancer were 'similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout'" is taken from the popular press article but it or anything like it cannot be found in the academic source. In fact the cited Independent article misrepresents the academic source; it quotes the report/article as saying the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", but this is not found in the published study. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another comment. The paragraph cites statistics from the study, but the authors of the study explicitly caution against quantitative interpretations of their results, saying only that they believe them to be qualitatively convincing. I don't think the article should mention quantitative results per the authors comments and also as the study is a low quality source under WP:MEDRS anyway, being primary research of low quality i.e. a questionnaire. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference to article re: discovery of mass grave on 17 May 2011 incomplete and misleading
In the paragraph pertaining to the discovery of the mass grave in Fallujah on 17 May 2011 it states "The US Military declined to comment." This is misleading based on the article cited. As per the article cited, the US military declined to immediately comment. Please change the sentence to "The US Military declined to immediately comment." This would be a fairer and more accurate statement.

Dm10025 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. To make an informed decision on this, we really need to know whether they commented subsequently. Even if they did, the sentence is still accurate as written, but inserting "immediately" implies that they did. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Babylonian Times"
The fact that Fallujah was occupied since "Babylonian times" is mentioned twice in the article without citation. Babylonia is an area not a period.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081224080505/http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu:80/history/seminar/benjamin/benjamin1.htm to http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin/benjamin1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Iraq army attacks IS in May 2016

 * Spiegel.de: Irak beginnt Militäroffensive zur Rückeroberung von Falludscha (German)
 * NBCNews: Iraqi Forces Begin Massive Offensive to Retake Fallujah

In May 2016, Iraq army started fights against IS for reconquest of Falludscha. --92.72.103.154 (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fallujah fully captured by Iraqi army; please edit the article
Fallujah has been fully captured by Iraqi army. I wanted to edit the article to show this but I am unable to edit it as I don't have an account and I found out even if I create one it will take days before I am able to edit this. So can someone with a confirmed account please edit this? Thank you. 117.199.82.121 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016
"Unfortunately due to the study Methodology the authors had to include a significant qualifier by saying "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively"

This seems like a very biased sentence ( Starting with "Unfortunately....") 174.16.7.48 (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree... most scientific studies have some sort of qualifier, but this entry seems designed as a somewhat unwarranted attempt to dismiss the findings. I have toned down the sentence. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418094059/http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-31-voa6.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-31-voa6.cfm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallujah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523183213/http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=gamelan&geo=-105&srt=pdnn&col=abcdefghimoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=&geo=444082378 to http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=gamelan&geo=-105&srt=pdnn&col=abcdefghimoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=&geo=444082378
 * Added tag to http://postimg.org/image/euj0qcxd/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is a piece of shlitz.
Self explanatory. No useful info and a pile of bullshit. 209.171.85.32 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)