Talk:Iraqi Perspectives Project

Article with high degree of reader interest
csloat has done a good job in getting this article started. Without a doubt, many people will find this topic very interesting. I hope the page attracts a number of good editors to help make it better. RonCram 17:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

These documents are not the same as Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents
I am somewhat surprised this is an issue, but it is easily clarified. The linked article contains this quote:
 * Drawing on interviews with dozens of captured senior Iraqi military and political leaders and hundreds of thousands of official Iraqi documents (hundreds of them fully translated), this two-year project has changed our understanding of the war from the ground up. The study was partially declassified in late February; its key findings are presented here.

It is clear this study is based on "hundreds" of "fully translated" official Iraqi documents. No doubt there is very valuable information here. Evidently, the project also glanced at hundreds of thousands of other documents but did not fully translate them, possibly because they were of litle interest. While the hundreds of thousands of other documents may be a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents that are being released on the web, they are not the whole. Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents number in the millions and contain audiotape and, I believe, videotape. None of the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents had been fully translated prior to the release. The entire purpose of releasing them is to get them all translated. While the Iraqi Perspectives Project is very valuable and changes our outlook on what was going on inside Iraq, it would be completely wrong to identify these translated documents with the untranslated Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. RonCram 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ron, you are making distinctions that are not made in any of the literature on this. "hundreds" of the documents have been translated, and thousands more have not.  They have been examined, however; as you admit, "they were of little interest." But Rep. Hoekstra wanted them released anyway so bloggers could cherry pick them for vague suggestions that Bush was right all along to trust Chalabi, Curveball, al-Libi, and the rest of them.  You have not presented a shred of evidence that these documents are a different set of documents, nor any reason why the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office would artificially separate two sets of documents and ignore one set while writing a detailed study about the other set.  You are right that there are many untranslated documents here as well as a few translated ones, but you offer no evidence to support your bizarre conclusion that this is a separate set of documents to be treated as if it were in a vacuum.--csloat 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Report: Saddam and Terrorism
Looks like the "Project" continues. The article had talked about only its 1st report but it looks like there's more coming. rewinn (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ALSO - if you're interested in further researching this report, you can request a copy at the JSF site: http://www.jwfc.jfcom.mil/webapps/forms/USJFCOM/feedback.jsp . I tried it, and swiftly got an order confirmation. rewinn (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iraqi Perspectives Project. 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 https://web.archive.org/20080313173137/http://blogs.abcnews.com:80/rapidreport/2008/03/pentagon-report.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/pentagon-report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)