I've been saying that the [[coaliton of the willing]] article was a mess for a long time now, but didn't have the enrgy to fight everybody who thinks it's wonderful.  Since the article is SUPPOSEDLY about the allies, I never understood why the position of every country in the world was included.  I agree with Ed that another article discussing the national positions is needed, but I didn't want to face attack for trying to edit [[coalition of the willing]] for fear of having my head handed to me.

The lack of NPOV in the war articles is a serious problem, as well.

Zoe

 "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com> wrote:

We need to come up with a neutral, timeless name for the war
in Iraq. Forgive me for the length of this post, but I
believe it's important enough to warrant your attention.

I object to the incessant labeling of the war in Iraq as
the "invasion of Iraq". There is a lot more to the war than
the fact that 2 or 3 countries have invaded it.

Regardless of our personal feelings about how right or wrong
the conduct of any nation in the war has been, the
*articles* should:
* have neutral content
* have neutral titles

Let me lay my cards on the table, so you don't
misunderstand. My church opposes the US campaign: Bush was
wrong to attack. I agree with that POV. Many others do,
also, although perhaps not for precisely the same religious
reasons as Rev. Moon.

However, even though I'm "right" about my POV and most
Wikipedians happen to agree with me...

WE ALL AGREED TO ADHERE TO JIMBO'S NEUTRAL-POINT-OF-VIEW
POLICY

Excuse me for shouting, but several of us have been
confounding neutral-point-of-view with other things. I'm not
naming names and not engaging in prolepsis or other Roman
rhetorical tricks. I just want to fix the problem, so let's
all pitch in, please.

The war started in 2003, and it's taking place in Iraq
(which is near the Persian Gulf), so we might call it:

* the [[2003 war in Iraq]] or [[2003 Iraq War]]
* the [[2003 Gulf War]]

There are various military campaigns. I know of 4 countries
fighting against Iraq (the "allies" or "coalition"). We
should write about the war from the standpoint that there
are two sides in the war:

* Iraq
* US, UK, Australia & Poland

(I might be wrong about Australia or Poland; if so, that's
an important detail and please correct me.)

(There might be other countries which are parties to the
conflict. Maybe Iraq has a military or other ally which I
don't know about; if so, we should write about that ally!
There are up to 4 dozen countries in various degrees of
opposition to Iraq, and we've begun an article or two on
them.)

Also, I think "coalition of the willing" is a purely
political phrase: propaganda, i.e., a slogan. I don't think
it makes a good title for either of the following topics:

* the countries which oppose Iraq in the 2003 war, or
* every country which has made a statement or taken action
FOR OR AGAINST IRAQ

The latter topic, especially, would be just plain stupid to
call [[coalition of the willing]] because by design it
includes opponents.

I started dividing the [[coalition of the willing]] article
into:

* a short article about the slogan "coalition of the
willing"
* a longer article, tentatively called [[US-led coalition
against Iraq]]

But the "...coalition" article lists every nation in the
world which has ever made a statement or taken action on the
war. Roughly, there are around 2 or 3 dozen nations ranged
against Iraq (in word or deed) and maybe 5 dozen speaking up
for them or providing aid.

Shouldn't we have an article which lists the positions of
each nation of the world on this war? If so, what should we
call it? How about [[national positions on the 2003 war in
Iraq]]? Can we think of a shorter or more accurate title?

I hate to keep taking discussion off the talk pages, but
this is the only central place I know of, and talk gets
fragmented and overlooked too easily when discussing
multiple articles.

Ed Poor