Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Iraq War

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 12 September 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Iraq War) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Removal of useful information

Snooganssnoogans - Why did you revert the following change? (also NYCJosh) Iraq-war
Further background on the unreliability and lack of quality intelligence the USA had prior to the Iraq war is entirely relevant to this article and it makes me really question your integrity when you remove stuff like this, as your edit history shows you have a clear agenda. This should stay up. I also find it bizarre you have an issue with someone removing content they don't like here, yet looking at your edit history, you seem to do this constantly? Any political views you don't agree with, you remove without any discussion. If there are any "serious concerns" here, then they relate to the biased, lack of NPOV editing style you are using Apeholder (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me. Both edits were horrible and should have been reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not run by your rules and there is no rule for an edit being "horrible". It was valid, well sourced and entirely relevant. I'm going to restore it. Apeholder (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Removal of well sourced, relevant information, and of headings much needed to guide the reader, is improper without a solid reason well grounded in WP rules. One editor's personal assessment that such an edit is "horrible" is not a proper reason.--NYCJosh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the edit is useful, since the WMDs story was the main selling point of the war. TFD (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans, NYCJosh, and The Four Deuces: I think that the various subheadings added by Josh in this edit [1] are reasonable, except for the first: "U.S. government searches for a way to attack Iraq immediately following 9/11". The subheading is justified by the text that follows, but it is extraordinarily heavy-handed and thus diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. I think a good litmus test is the "Razor" in Raul's WP:LAWS: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." Arguably the next added subheading "U.S. commences public relations campaign for war" could be better changed to "Public relations campaign," or something similar, though I'm not sure what's best here.
It's important that headings and subheadings not be editorial. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy is "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." Wikipedia articles accept as fact that the earth is round, the moonlanding happened etc. While the heading might have been seen as a matter of opinion at the onset of the war, today it reflects accepted fact. See for example the statement in The Iraq War: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2012), p. 2: "The president's remarks suggest a determination to invade Iraq in search of a pretext for doing so."[2] Even at the time, neutral experts who had access to the material said there was no evidence of WMDs. TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what you've written, but that subheading I've flagged just does not read as encyclopedic. What about "Plans to attack Iraq after 9/11," or something like that? -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Iraq said it had WMDs" in lead

What is the source for this? Where is this covered in the body? As far as I can tell, Iraq never outright stated that they possessed WMDs. What did was to not signal clearly that they dismantled their WMDs and that they failed to provide unambiguous evidence that they had no WMDs. Per Lake: "Saddam could not provide unambiguous evidence to the international community of his compliance with the UN disarmament resolutions without also revealing his military weakness to internal opponents, Iran, and possibly other regional powers—including Israel." + "In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was unwilling to signal clearly that he had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and thus ran a higher risk of conºict with the United States in order to deter challenges from his Shiite and Kurdish minorities and regional rivals, especially Iran" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Iraqi government repeatedly declared that it had no WMD. For example, in 2002, it supplied a 12,000-page report documenting its weapons programs and its destruction of its WMD the 1990s: [3].
Looking over the lede again, I realize that we do not mention WMD until the third paragraph. As it was the justification given for the war, WMD should be in the first paragraph, maybe even the first sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri "Killed in Action"??

He died many years after the end of the war, but for some reason the summary lists him as killed in action with the dagger. 2607:FEA8:4C21:E100:20FF:B520:9835:D115 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

no, he died natural death!

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Sides in Infobox

Why are ISIS, Saddam's government, and the Shia militias all listed as being on the same side in this war? That strikes me as a glaring inaccuracy in this article. Rivere123 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Separation lines implemented in the column of the infobox indicating that although they are all against the US-led Coalition they are not allies themselves. Discussed years ago and also same practice implemented in other war articles where two different groups fight against a third party, but are not allied to eachother. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

War Authorisation in Lede

"In October 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq" can be misunderstood as Congress supporting a military attack. In reality, it only authorized giving the President the power of military intervention if he chooses to, i.e. the decision-maker was Bush, not Congress. Quotes:[1] "Mr. President we are about to give you a great trust", "We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance", "The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for". Suggest making the sentence more accurate and less prone to misinterpretation: "In October 2002, Congress authorized President Bush the power to decide whether to launch any military attack against Iraq." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Collins, Dan. "Congress Says Yes To Iraq Resolution". CBS News. Archived from the original on 23 August 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019.

Casualty estimate in the first paragraph

It doesn't make much sense to list the estimated casualties for the first 3 to 5 years of the war in the first paragraph for an 8 year war when their are figures covering the 8 years. It would make much more sense if updated figures were used for the entire 8 years. The death estimates listed don't even cover most of the civil war period, the deadliest period. GreenCows (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Stating the US Congress voted for the war in the lede is misleading as the invasion itself was illegal under international law. There was no second resolution from the UN, and the invasion violated Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter. (86.151.111.73 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC))

The bottom right image of the collage has been deleted from Commons. I can put together a new one. Any requests? Schierbecker (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is Prince Robe

Under the "Commanders and leaders" section, there is a name among the Spanish leaders that says "Prince Robe". No reference, no results on Google search, nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.27.81.240 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that was vandalism. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Death estimate from Opinion Research Business Survey

In the table under the section "Casualty estimates" it states that the Opinion Research Business survey found 1,033,000 violent deaths from the conflict, however in the summary table to the top right on the page, where the same number is quoted, there is a footnote claiming that these 1,033,000 deaths are the "Total excess deaths include all additional deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.". This discrepancy needs to be sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1458:202:79:0:0:102:D72F (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Results

The infobox currently lists a great many results of this conflict:

This is much more detail than is normal in these infoboxen (compare French Revolutionary Wars, World War II and even World War I. While I agree that all of these things have happened, in some sense, as a result of the war, not all of them seem to be direct results. I'm particularly sceptical about the 2019–2021 Iraqi protests and about having both the rise and "Subsequent reduction in violence and depletion" of al-Qaeda in Iraq as consequences of the war. I also wonder whether the Civil War of 2006-2008 is a result of the war rather than a part of it and I wonder wheher some of the events after 2014 would be better seen as results of the Escalation of sectarian insurgency after US withdrawal and the Re-escalation of conflict rather than of the war directly? Furius (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Furius (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Michael Petrou (9 September 2011). "The decline of al-Qaeda". Maclean's. George W. Bush gambled on surging thousands more troops to the embattled country. It paid off. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now a diminished force without territory.
  2. ^ Spencer C. Tucker (14 December 2015). U.S. Conflicts in the 21st Century: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, and the War on Terror. ISBN 978-1440838798. Al Qaeda in Iraq was decimated by the end of the Iraq War in 2011
  3. ^ "The JRTN Movement and Iraq's Next Insurgency | Combating Terrorism Center at West Point". Ctc.usma.edu. Archived from the original on 26 August 2011. Retrieved 2 August 2014.
  4. ^ "Al-Qaeda's Resurgence in Iraq: A Threat to U.S. Interests". US Department of State. 5 February 2014. Retrieved 26 November 2010.
  5. ^ Galbraith, Peter W. (2007). The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0743294249.[page needed]
  6. ^ "Iran expands regional 'empire' ahead of nuclear deal". Reuters. 23 March 2015. Archived from the original on 10 November 2015. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
  7. ^ "How to Stop Iran's Growing Hegemony – National Review Online". National Review Online. 10 April 2015.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference us-army-iran-victor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Iraqi protesters block major port near Basra as unrest continues". Al Jazeera. 2 November 2019.
  10. ^ "Anti-government protests : Is This Iraq's Arab Spring?—Qantara.de". Qantara.de. 6 November 2019.
  11. ^ "Protests in Iraq turn into anti-Iranian demonstrations". Daily Sabah. 27 October 2019.
  12. ^ Abdul-Ahad, Ghaith (29 October 2019). "Iraq's young protesters count cost of a month of violence". The Guardian.

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YH4DU (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aiapicco, Bayley1234, Emjwatson, Karanaconda.

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's a clear consensus against the proposed title, and although there's a bit more interest in some other sort of move, consensus seems to be that the current title is the common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


Iraq War → USA-Iraq war – Title is ambiguous; Iraq has been involved in multiple wars. I assume "Iraq war" is the name used in the USA, but this justification is somewhat nonsensical and POV. -- NotCharizard 🗨 20:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - Title is non-specific and does not reflect an encyclopedic tone, especially due to the numerous parties involved in said war. The Meta Boi (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
So why are you supporting a title that highlights only two? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It wasn't only Iraq but Support - a different name that is more encyclopedic BoonDock (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the common English name for the conflict and the article title should not change unless the common English name changes. As for the claim that the title is not encyclopaedic, well, the same title is used by the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, the World Book Encyclopedia, and The Iraq War Encyclopedia. "The Iraq war" give 5.6 million results on google, "USA-Iraq war" give 8,530. The proposed title is not less ambiguous, since there have been two wars between the USA and Iraq. Furius (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Common name. And you do know that half the world was involved in it? Not just Iraq and the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given above. Maybe "Iraq War (2003–2011)" could be considered as a name for the article, I suppose? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were other countries involved. Include the year in the title if needed, but not USA. Bkatcher (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[61] weeklystandard.com is a dead link Unnecessarily (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Iraq War → Iraq war – Per WP:NCCPT. I understand that it will require a lot of cleanup, but we must follow the policy WP:NCCPT. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as this is a proper noun BhamBoi (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This could be a speedy SNOW close. BhamBoi (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding A List Of Weapons

Can We Please Add A List Of Weapons/Equipment To This Wiki Page ? 188.136.9.17 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_34&oldid=1174993050"