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(a)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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!