Revision as of 17:44, 17 May 2024 editSlatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,690 edits Undid revision 1224322307 by 94.25.60.137 (talk)irrelevantTag: Undo← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors63,035 edits →Should John Howard be added as a leader?: rm dupe | ||
(88 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes |
{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}} | ||
{{Round in circles|search=no}} | {{Round in circles|search=no}} | ||
{{American English}} | {{American English}} | ||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=high}} | {{WikiProject Arab world|importance=high}} | ||
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}} | {{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High}} | ||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USMIL=yes|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}} | {{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USMIL=yes|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}} | ||
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}} | {{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}} | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 35 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} | ||
== "Second Persian Gulf War" == | |||
== Result == | |||
Greetings, @]. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the ] was known as the First Gulf War, while the ] of 1990–1991 was in fact ]. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this ] name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. ] (]) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
who should we put for the victor? ] (]) 03:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
: |
:I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. ] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I strongly disagree with that. The ] claim here is in fact that the ] is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the ] article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the ] article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the ]. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the ] article, not this one. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::who is RS? ] (]) 20:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the ] article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::], reliable sources. ] (]) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." ] (]) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::oh i don't know then ] (]) 20:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
], please revert your changes to the results and stop adding them across various pages. It's disruptive and you're not providing RS. The insurgents didn't overwhelm and defeat the coalition. The Iraqi government didn't "manage to reclaim all land occupied by US and Coalition forces in Iraq". They were not fighting eachother and were allies. ] (]) 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
==PP== | |||
Will we need to ask for page protection if the ] gets too much? ] (]) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== suggest we need a section on "political impact" == | |||
:i never said that the Iraqi government fought US and coalition forces, i'm saying after the US left in 2011, the iraqi government reclaimed all of its land back ] (]) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::What has that to do with a war that had ended? ] (]) 15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::it was the result ] (]) 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::It came after the war was over, if not find an RS that says it was the result. ] (]) 18:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::An RS would also be required for the claim that the "Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq". It's simply not true and cannot remain. You also initially added that it was the insurgents and not the government who had reclaimed all occupied land which are opposite results. ] (]) 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::i do have plenty of RS's to support the fact that the insurgents did defeat the US and coalition forces: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraqi-ambush-americans-made-mockery-mission-accomplished-2023-03-16/ | |||
::::::https://www.quora.com/How-did-untrained-weak-Iraqi-insurgents-hold-their-own-against-their-U-S-for-8-years-despite-being-massively-outnumbered-and-outpaced | |||
::::::https://www.jstor.org/stable/20031708?typeAccessWorkflow=login | |||
::::::https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-failed-strategy-middle-east-losing-iraq-and-gulf | |||
::::::i also have RS's to support the fact that the new iraqi government did reclaim iraq after US and coalition forces left: | |||
::::::https://www.britannica.com/place/Iraq/U-S-withdrawal-and-the-rise-of-the-Islamic-State-in-Iraq-and-the-Levant-ISIL | |||
::::::https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war | |||
::::::https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-iraq/ | |||
::::::https://www.usip.org/iraq-timeline-2003-war | |||
::::::https://www.justsecurity.org/81556/still-at-war-the-united-states-in-iraq/ | |||
::::::https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/islamic-state ] (]) 00:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::but then again, i never said that the Iraqi government fought US and coalition forces, i'm saying after the US left in 2011, the iraqi government reclaimed all of its land back ] (]) 00:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::oh would you look at that, another RS to support the fact that the insurgents did defeat the US and coalition forces: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq ] (]) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::and another one: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resistindex.htm | |||
::::::::look i could give you as many as you want to be honest ] (]) 03:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::still hungry for more RS's? | |||
:::::::::https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/world/struggle-for-iraq-insurgents-anti-us-outrage-unites-growing-iraqi-resistance.html | |||
:::::::::https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-06-fg-counterinsurgency6-story.html ] (]) 03:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
None of the sources you posted comes close to supporting the wording that the insurgents "overwhelmed and defeated" the coalition. That's a very strong claim and would have to imply that the insurgents had a total victory against the coalition between 2003 to 2011. The insurgency phase was Inconclusive with no winners. Some of your sources are from 2004. ] (]) 04:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Some even later. Many seem to only talk about them holding their own, or one battle. Per ] the source must say (in its words) that " insurgents overwhelmed us forces" or "the US lost to the insurgents". ] (]) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::oh, you want more sources?? buckle up... ] (]) 10:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::No I want you to quote one source that says (in its words) the insurgents overwhelmed the US. ] (]) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Alright i got you, how about i get you an RS that says the US lost against the insurgents, deal? ] (]) 11:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::How about you find a source that supports the edit you want to make ], or accept you do not have one? ] (]) 11:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::no, i do ] (]) 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::OK then quote the part where is says the US forces were overwhelmed. Until you do I oppose your suggested text, my last word until you provide the quote and the source. ] (]) 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::here you go: | |||
::::::::https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/aln/aln_spring04/aln_spring04g.pdf | |||
::::::::https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444.htm | |||
::::::::https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq | |||
::::::::https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-06-fg-counterinsurgency6-story.html | |||
::::::::https://www.gao.gov/assets/a113574.html | |||
::::::::All of these sources explicitly mention that US and coalition forces were overwhelmed by the iraqi insurgency and that they failed to defeat the insurgency, if you don't see that, i can quote it for you, and if you still don't see it, then no offense, but you might be blind ] (]) 12:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::source 1:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq | |||
:::::::::quote 1: Because they lack a coherent strategy, U.S. forces in Iraq have failed to defeat the insurgency or improve security. ] (]) 15:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::source 2:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444.htm | |||
::::::::::quote 2: These DOD sources indicated that U.S. and coalition forces were overwhelmed ] (]) 15:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::source 3: https://www.usip.org/publications/2014/10/07/iraq-after-american-withdrawal | |||
:::::::::::quote 3: "after the American withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011, a renewed sectarian and anti-government insurgency swept through the country, causing thousands of casualties." This statement clearly indicates that the US was not successful in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, as the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops. ] (]) 17:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::i cant quote more if you want ] (]) 01:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-war-iraq | |||
:::::::::::::quote: "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011." The report goes on to describe how the US-led coalition forces were successful in many battles, but the urban fighting was costly and the insurgency persisted. Ali36800p (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Here are some additional sources that explicitly mention the fact that the US failed to defeat the Iraqi insurgency: | |||
:::::::::::::A report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, which states that "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war." | |||
:::::::::::::An article by The Guardian, which describes how "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war." | |||
:::::::::::::A report by the Congressional Research Service, which notes that "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011." | |||
:::::::::::::These sources provide further evidence that the US was not successful in defeating the Iraqi insurgency and that the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops. | |||
:::::::::::::https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi | |||
:::::::::::::https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/19/iraq-war-10-years-on | |||
:::::::::::::https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf ] (]) 01:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::None of these sources support the claim that "Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq". "Failing to defeat an enemy" is as far from "being defeated" as "defeating an enemy" is from "failing to defeat an enemy". {{pb}} In any case, per ] comment below, this is a moot point; "see aftermath" seems to be the best thing to put in the infobox, and the aftermath section describes the full picture quite well. ] (]) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::i mean i dont know what else to say besides the fact that we should probably just include the fact that the US and coalition forces did fail to defeat the insurgency at least if we can't say that the Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq, but no i disagree with the fact that "see aftermath" is the best option, we should just keep as it is, each point has a reliable source to support its claim ] (]) 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::The MOS is very clear on this issue; if you disagree, then you should seek to change the MOS. | |||
::::::::::::::::{{pb}} I have no objection to stating, ''in the article'', that the coalition forces failed to defeat the insurgency, if supported by appropriate citations. However, you may note that the aftermath section discusses, in detail, the continued insurgency after the US withdrew. Whatever change you make, I hope we can all come to a consensus on it and avoid any edit wars. ] (]) 13:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Per ], which gives voice to the template documentation in respect to the result parameter, multiple dot points are not supported and acceptable responses against this parameter are limited. In this case, the ''see Aftermath'' would appear to be the most appropriate. I have amended the infobox accordingly. ] (]) 08:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. ] (]) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::obviously it seems that you ] this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read ]. ] (]) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in ''all'' the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and ''all'' years, right up to the date today. | |||
::::::so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. ] (]) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? ] (]) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. ] (]) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{U|Ali36800p}}, I see that you have reverted my edit to reinstate dot-points under the result parameter, contrary to the guidance and the broader consensus of the community. I see that there is already an ANI report made regarding your conduct in relation to the matters discussed herein. I would strongly suggest that you revert your most recent edit that reinstated the dot-points. Your conduct to reinstate the dot-points and continue to edit-war on this matter when presented with a resolution supported by guidance will probably not be considered well. ] (]) 12:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I second this. Cinderella157 made an edit in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If you think we are mistaken in how we interpret this, by all means, discuss it here, but continuing to revert is not likely to end well. If you want different content other than "See aftermath", perhaps we can discuss a compromise. I gather you want it emphasized that the US and coalition did not emerge victorious. Accord to ], our two options are: | |||
::# Have the infobox read: "See aftermath", per Cinderella157 | |||
::# Omit the "result" part entirely | |||
::I am ambivalent between these two. If you think we're misapplying these guidelines, please discuss here. In either case, I don't intend to revert at this time, though if another editor agrees with Cinderella157, I'd encourage them to do so. ] (]) 17:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::i dont even want to change it anymore, ive already provided RS's to support the fact that the US and coalition forces failed to defeat the insurgents, i have abandoned the idea that "iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and coalition forces in iraq". so we are good now, we should just keep it the same as it was before, new ideas are unnecessary. ] (]) 17:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::"new ideas are unnecessary" does not seem to rebut the argument that the Manual of Style clearly states, {{tq|The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions.}} Do you disagree that the manual of style discommends bullet points in the result section? If not, what is your argument for not following the manual of style? Why does it have to say this in the infobox, and not the article body? | |||
::::{{pb}}On a related note, you have to actually use the citations inline for the claim you're making in the article. I recommend using the citation tool; it makes things much easier. I haven't reverted you here so you can have the opportunity to add in 2-3 citations that back your claim. ] (]) 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::it has to stay in the infobox because infoboxes provide a quick and easy way for readers to access key information about a topic without having to read through an entire article. Infoboxes can help to standardize the presentation of information across different articles, making it easier for readers to compare and contrast different topics. Infoboxes can help to improve the accessibility of information by presenting it in a clear and concise manner. Infoboxes can help to improve the navigability of Misplaced Pages by providing links to related articles and other resources. Infoboxes can help to reduce the amount of clutter in an article by summarizing key information in a separate section. Infoboxes can help to ensure that important information is not overlooked or buried in an article. Overall, infoboxes are a useful tool for summarizing key information about a particular topic in a standardized and accessible manner. | |||
:::::secondly, i appreciate your patience and respect, and i actually do know how to make citations with easybib.com, my only question is where and how do i insert these citations in the article? ] (]) 23:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:ok, thats totally fair. ] (]) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::] tells us not to try to write the article in the infobox and that {{tq|The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose}}. Multiple dot points here are clearly contrary to INFOBOXPURPOSE and the guidance at ] for an infobox which is exceedingly bloated. ] (]) 23:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::if they have too many points then we could find a way to include some of the information still kept in the infobox, and remove some of the unnecessary points in the infobox, can we agree on that? ] (]) 23:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::(edit conflict) Excellent! It sounds like we're all in agreement on the benefits of infoboxes. Something you said states, way better than I ever did, exactly why I don't think we should have bullet points in the infobox. You wrote, {{tq|Infoboxes can help to standardize the presentation of information across different articles, making it easier for readers to compare and contrast different topics.}} That is exactly what ], which discourages bullet points in infoboxes, is meant to do. | |||
::::::{{pb}}Regarding providing a quick way to access key information, I wonder if perhaps I didn't explain what I'm thinking clearly. What is proposed is that the "Result" section will contain the text, "See ]". That way the wikilink is embedded in the info box, and they only have to click it to be taken to the aftermath section, where we can polish up the first paragraph to provide a better overview. Would that be acceptable to you? | |||
::::::{{pb}}Finally, I'm glad to hear I've come across as respectful; you seem to really want to improve things, and that's exactly the kind of editor we want! For citations, the way the article is written now, I'd put the citations directly into the infobox, so it'd look like, | |||
::::::* <nowiki> US and Coalition forces fail to defeat ]<ref>{{cite web...}}</ref><</nowiki> | |||
::::::However, I may be wrong in this; I'm not super familiar with infobox guidelines, so my apologies if I've mislead you! ] (]) 23:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::ok thank you, now i'm just going to go and put my citations in the article, do you need me with anything else? ] (]) 23:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Just like the lead, the infobox should be a summary of the body of the article, which, in turn, should be supported by reliable sources. We should be writing the article first and foremost. If this is done, there should be little or no need to add references to the infobox. I did observe that some of the dot-points under the result parameter may reflect territorial changes and might be better placed under that parameter. I am not seeing a consensus to retain the dot-points under the result parameter - particularly when one considers the broader community consensus of ] (see also ]). ] (]) 00:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::so which points do you want me to remove? ] (]) 01:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::All of them. ] (]) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::no, thats not what me and ] (]) agreed on, you know what, i'll just ask him ] (]) 02:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::I do think we should remove all the bullet points in the "result" field, on the following rationale: | |||
::::::::::::# It's so busy right now, that readers are unlikely to use it | |||
::::::::::::# If we remove specific bullets but not others, we're making a value judgement about which is more important. I'm not comfortable asserting that one outcome is more important than another. | |||
::::::::::::{{pb}}I also think it may be worth adding a summary paragraph to the start of the Aftermath section, basically summarizing the current bullet points. This makes that information more available to readers, and gives them that high-level overview as soon as they click the "Aftermath" link in the infobox. I'll start a new section with a suggested paragraph so we can all workshop it and make sure it's up to our standards before we add it to the article. | |||
::::::::::::{{pb}}In the meantime, I suggest we keep the bullet points temporarily per ], then once we have the new summary paragraph ready, replace the bullets with "See aftermath" and add the summary paragraph in one edit. | |||
::::::::::::{{pb}}Does that sound reasonable to everyone? ] (]) 19:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::I still don't understand why the see aftermath section is better than just keeping the bullet points there like they always were, when you say readers are unlikely to use it, it still matters for people who might be researching about this topic and just need quick results rather than to read an entire new page, me personally, that's my objection, so no i dont think we should start a new section with a suggested paragraph, it's not necessary ] (]) 21:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::{{U|EducatedRedneck}}, this would be a good course. {{U|Ali36800p}}, an infobox is an ''at a glance'' summary. If it is too detailed or too nuanced to be captured with a couple of words, it doesn't belong in the infobox. ] and ] are both telling us this. A reader ''researching'' the subject will be looking for something more substantial than a series of superficial dot-points. The ''see Aftermath'' entry tells them where to go to get the information without having to read the whole article. ] tells us that less is usually better. The infobox is not meant to be a mini article but a supplement. The ''result'' parameter is just one part of the infobox that makes this whole infobox ''terribly'' large. The whole infobox needs to be stripped back. You might look at the discussion at ] about that infobox and the clear consensus there. I don't think that you are likely to change your mind on this but this is the consensus of the broader community expressed through guidelines. ] (]) 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::the bullet points in the results are already simple enough ] (]) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::Each one is simple, but there are 12 of them. To use your example, if a reader is trying to get a quick idea of what happened, they're looking for "Coalition victory", "Insurgent victory", or something that length. That many bullet points is way more detail than the infobox is designed for. By linking to "See aftermath", they are told that the result is complicated, and shown where they can learn more ''if that is the information they seek''. | |||
::::::::::::::::{{pb}}Not all readers will be looking for the result. For those readers, that many bullet points distracts them. On my screen, the "Results" bullet points go almost to the end of the lede; that means that a reader who wants an overview could finish reading the lede before seeing any information on the involved commanders, troop dispositions, etc. By keeping all the bullet points, we're better serving the readers looking for details on the result... at the expense of the readers who look for anything else. | |||
::::::::::::::::{{pb}}Does that make sense? I think we're all trying to make the article better serve the readers, which is the important part. Now we're just trying to agree on how to do that. | |||
::::::::::::::::{{pb}}One last important thing to note is what Cinderella157 has been referring to. Even if Cinderella and I were to be convinced by you, there's a consensus at a much higher level on how infoboxes are to be used. You're welcome to go to MOS:MIL to try to change that consensus, but unless that consensus changes, we have to abide by it. ] (]) 23:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::{{comment}}But the current wording in the template also represents consensus of what should be in this infobox. ] actually tells us: "As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles". About changes to MILMOS: how do you think, is the milhist community ready for such discussion?--] (]) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
*The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as ''political legacy''. As such, it is part of the aftermath. ''If'' we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in ''good quality'' sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to ]. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. ] (]) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. ] (]) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Each case is different. The talk on Syrian civil war was about that infobox only. But if to be precise, the result is "withdrawal of U.S. troops" and "continued insurgency". ] (]) 03:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
*:every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what ] means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. ] (]) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::] is also a policy, but the issue above was that the now blocked user was refusing to engage on a policy or guideline level at all. If a consensus emerges here that the bullets should be retained, that is perfectly acceptable. To answer your question {{tq|About changes to MILMOS: how do you think, is the milhist community ready for such discussion?}}: I imagine it's perfectly ready, but my impression was that the appropriate place to discuss changing the MOS was on the MOS talk page. Am I mistaken in this? I'm still a new editor, so I'd appreciate being set straight early on, before I can develop bad habits! ] (]) 12:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: |
*::if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
*:::from, ]: | |||
*:::<blockquote> | |||
*:::A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. | |||
*:::...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.</blockquote> | |||
*:::--] (]) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or ''point''. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. ] (]) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? {{small|{{strike|(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)}}}} ] (]) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. ] (]) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. ] (]) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::::And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. ] (]) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::::ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. ] (]) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== |
===proposed text=== | ||
here is the proposed text: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
The issue is whether to retain the multiple dot-points against the result parameter (per ) or replace these with ''see Aftermath'' in accordance with ], which gives voice to the guidance at ] regarding the result parameter. Accompanying this is a proposal to amend the aftermath section such that the points presently made against the result parameter are more clearly and explicitly addressed in the aftermath section (see ). Comments in respect to the issue are sought. ] (]) 00:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
;Political impact | |||
Notified at MilHist . ] (]) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
<s>The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. </s> at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the ] passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |title=Situation in Iraq |publisher=Europarl.europa.eu |access-date=2018-08-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070213035323/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |archive-date=2007-02-13 |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
*'''Use ''See Aftermath''''' per my comments above in the main section of this discussion, in accordance with ]. ] (]) 00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States. | |||
It would appear that this has been resolved by a block being imposed. ] (]) 00:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
: If the end date is December 2011 and by that date "Iraqi government manages to reclaim all land occupied by US and Coalition forces in Iraq", then it's effectively Iraqi victory. --] (]) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I'd be strongly against any infobox claim for a US or Iraqi victory; this is an oversimplification. The Iraqi government of 2011 was not the Iraqi government of 2002 in any respect. Anyway, any claims of a victory for either side would have to be supported by a majority of ]. Any attempt to reason out who won from individual factors is ]. ] (]) 01:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, probably you're right. This war simply ended (if December 2011 is correct) with the withdrawal of the U.S. troops. ] (]) 02:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::I'd '''support ''US Troops withdrawal, insurgency continues'''''. More happened, but a reader can check the aftermath section for that, if needed. I'd '''prefer ''see aftermath''''', but the withdrawal/continued insurgency seems a suitable compromise if anyone else objects to ''see aftermath''. ] (]) 12:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::I think that both actually can be used.--] (]) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::then we should just put Inconclusive and then list all the bullet points ] (]) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
'''See Aftermath''' seems best given how complex this is. We do not have a clear win-lose situation, nd anything else smacks of weasel words. ] (]) 12:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
;United States | |||
:I would like to make an objection and keep the bullet points ] (]) 21:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Then explain how keeping the bullet points does not violate ], or else make a very compelling case for ]. I think the LONG above conversation has demonstrated that "the bullet points are useful" has not convinced most editors. ] (]) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::then why dont we just put Inconclusive ] (]) 21:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::besides, the new see aftermath section that you just edited doesnt even list any of the past bullet points ] (]) 21:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Because ] clearly states to use "See aftermath" or similar. I think one could argue for "Inconclusive: see aftermath", though I would not personally support it. As for bullet points, then that sounds like a good time for someone to suggest what edits should be made to the Aftermath section to ensure that all the information is represented in the article. If it wasn't already in the article, it had no business being in the infobox per ] (See bullet #4.) ] (]) 21:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::This IP is obviously ] evading their block, please don't feed the troll by engaging. ] (]) 21:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::I was ], but it seems like I went overboard with it. Disengaging now; thanks for the advice! ] (]) 21:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::I do thing that Inconclusive;See aftermath is the best option, as long as you incorporate all the past bullet points that have been deleted into the see aftermath section, if enough editors agree, can this be done? ] (]) 21:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::Think* not thing, my bad ] (]) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” <ref> ,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian. </ref> | |||
===RFC Needed?=== | |||
I've ] implemented what I see as consensus from the above subsection to use "See aftermath" in the results section of the infobox. One of the drive-by IPs from much further up the thread reverted, but did not comment in the above. I wanted to check in with the editor here whether the above policy-based arguments constitute consensus, of if we should elevate this to a formal RFC. My impression was that consensus was for "See aftermath", and no RFC is needed, and if the IPs edit against consensus, it may need admin attention. However, I'd appreciate some help in validating or correcting (as appropraite) my thinking here. Thanks! ] (]) 21:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. <ref> , By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News. </ref> <ref> By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico. </ref> When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,” <ref> , BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine. </ref> <ref> , By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo. </ref> | |||
:Thank you. Policy based arguments ''should'' represent the consensus. Let's see how things go. ] (]) 23:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::we dont need to change it to a see aftermath section, if you guys think there are too many bullet points in the results section, look at how many points are in the result section in ] ] (]) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::This comment is off topic for this section, which is about how to enforce the above consensus. ] (]) 21:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, ], labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous. <ref> , Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024. </ref> | |||
== Casualty Table == | |||
;United Kingdom | |||
Per ], it sounds like it may be useful to migrate some of the infobox fields into the article body. The ] solely examines Iraqi casualties. Therefore, I propose the addition of a subsection entitled '''Casualty Overview''' and, in it, three tables of the form: | |||
In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
! Forces !! Killed !! Missing/Captured !! Wounded | |||
|- | |||
| Force1 || X dead || Y missing || Z Wounded | |||
|- | |||
| ... || ... || ... || ... | |||
|- | |||
| Total || XX || YY || ZZ | |||
|} | |||
There would be one table each for Coalition, Iraqi, and civilian casualties. This would allow us to make a single, high-level figure for the "Casulaties" section of the infobox, provide more detail in a piped link, and also direct the reader toward the article on casualties if desired. We'll also need to revamp the citations currently used in infobox; currently it's a lot of tabulation of values with bare URLs, which I think we can do better on. | |||
{{pb}}Thoughts? ] (]) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
One article in 2023 noted: | |||
:Looks to be a good place to start. ] (]) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote> By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas. | |||
Alright, since I got that encouragement and no objections, here's a first stab at the Coalition Casualties Table: | |||
<p> | |||
Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war. <ref> . Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023. </ref> </blockquote> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
{{talkrefs}} | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ Coalition Casualties | |||
|- | |||
! Force !! Killed !! Missing/Captured !! Wounded | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' (post-Saddam) | |||
|| 17,690<ref>260 killed in 2003, 15,196 killed from 2004 through 2009 (with the exceptions of May 2004 and March 2009), 67 killed in March 2009, 1,100 killed in 2010, and 1,067 killed in 2011, thus giving a total of 17,690 dead</ref> | |||
|| | |||
|| 40,000+<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/77707.pdf |title=Iraq War |publisher=US Department of State |access-date=18 November 2012}}</ref> | |||
|- | |||
|''']''' | |||
|| 4,821 (4,421 US,<ref>The US ] and the ] list 4,505 US fatalities during the Iraq War. In addition to these, two service members were also previously confirmed by the DoD to have died while supporting operations in Iraq, but have been excluded from the DoD and DMDC list. This brings the total of US fatalities in the Iraq War to 4,507.</ref> 179 UK,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishFatalities.htm |title=Fact Sheets | Operations Factsheets | Operations in Iraq: British Fatalities |publisher=Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom |access-date=17 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091011220157/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishFatalities.htm |archive-date=11 October 2009}}</ref> 139 other)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |title=Operation Iraqi Freedom |publisher=iCasualties |access-date=24 August 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110321080348/http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |archive-date=21 March 2011 }}</ref> | |||
|| (US): 17 (9 died in captivity, 8 rescued)<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/pow-and-mia-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-fast-facts |publisher=CNN |access-date=5 June 2014 | title=POW and MIA in Iraq and Afghanistan Fast Facts}}; As of July 2012, seven American private contractors remain unaccounted for. Their names are: Jeffrey Ake, Aban Elias, Abbas Kareem Naama, Neenus Khoshaba, Bob Hamze, Dean Sadek and Hussain al-Zurufi. Healy, Jack, "", '']'', 22 May 2011, p. 6.</ref> | |||
||32,776+ (32,292 US,<ref name="defensecasualty">{{cite web|url=http://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf |title=Casualty|access-date=29 June 2016}}</ref> 315 UK, 210+ other<ref>33 Ukrainians, 31+ Italians, 30 Bulgarians, 20 Salvadorans, 19 Georgians, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513160916/http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18470 |date=13 May 2011 }} 18 Estonians,{{citation needed|date=February 2023}} 14+ Poles, 15 Spaniards, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402233014/https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/17607/soldier-dead-after-attack-on-spanish-convoy-in-afghanistan |date=2 April 2019 }} 10 Romanians, 6 Australians, 5 Albanians, 4 Kazakhs, 3 Filipinos, and 2 Thais, for a total of 210+ wounded</ref>)<ref name=mil>Many official US tables at {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110303054755/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm |date=3 March 2011}}. See {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110602035127/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-total.pdf |date=2 June 2011}}</ref><ref name=antiwarcasualties>.</ref><ref name=icasualties>iCasualties.org (was lunaville.org). Benicia, California. Patricia Kneisler, ''et al.'', {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110321080348/http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx |date=21 March 2011}}</ref><ref name=ukcasualties> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061114214203/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishCasualties.htm |date=14 November 2006}}. UK Ministry of Defense. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004051608/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInIraq/OpTelicCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm |date=4 October 2012}}.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
|| 3,650 <ref>{{cite web | url=https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll | title=Human Costs of U.S. Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones | Figures | Costs of War }}</ref><ref name="dol.gov">{{cite web |url=http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallnation.htm |title=Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Defense Base Act Case Summary by Nation |publisher=US Department of Labor |access-date=15 December 2011}}</ref><ref name="projects.propublica.org">{{cite web |author=T. Christian Miller |url=http://projects.propublica.org/tables/contractor_casualties |title=US Government Private Contract Worker Deaths and Injuries |publisher=Projects.propublica.org |date=23 September 2009 |access-date=23 October 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727185847/http://projects.propublica.org/tables/contractor_casualties |archive-date=27 July 2011}}</ref> | |||
|| | |||
|| 43,880<ref name="dol.gov"/><ref name="projects.propublica.org"/> | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
|| 1,002+<ref>185 in Diyala from June 2007 to December 2007, 4 in assassination of ], 25 on 12 November 2007, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514132150/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/15/iraq/main3504599.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3504599 |date=14 May 2013 }} 528 in 2008, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161210152350/http://www.cfr.org/iraq/finding-place-sons-iraq/p16088 |date=10 December 2016 }} 27 on 2 January 2009, 13 on 16 November 2009,{{cite web |url=http://www.france24.com/en/node/4926131 |title=Thirteen anti-Qaeda tribe members killed in Iraq – France 24 |access-date=14 February 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429002216/http://www.france24.com/en/node/4926131 |archive-date=29 April 2011 }} 15 in December 2009, 100+ from April to June 2010, 52 on 18 July 2010, total of 1,002+ dead {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418161020/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?pagewanted=print |date=18 April 2009 }}</ref> | |||
|| | |||
|| 500+ (2007),<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/world/middleeast/24sunni.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print |work=The New York Times |first1=Solomon |last1=Moore |first2=Richard A. |last2=Oppel |title=Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq |date=24 January 2008}}</ref> 828 (2008)<ref>{{cite web |author=Greg Bruno |url=http://www.cfr.org/iraq/finding-place-sons-iraq/p16088 |title=Finding a Place for the 'Sons of Iraq' |publisher=Council on Foreign Relations |access-date=26 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161210152350/http://www.cfr.org/iraq/finding-place-sons-iraq/p16088 |archive-date=10 December 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| '''Total''' | |||
|| 27,163 | |||
|| | |||
|| 117,961 | |||
|} | |||
--] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Something I didn't know how to categorize was this category in the coalition forces part: {{bq|'''Injured/diseases/other medical*''': 51,139 (47,541 US,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-total.pdf |title=Global War on Terrorism – Operation Iraqi Freedom March 19, 2003 Through May 31, 2011 By Casualty Category Within Service |access-date=7 February 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110602035127/http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-total.pdf |archive-date=2 June 2011}}</ref> 3,598 UK)<ref name=mil/><ref name=icasualties/><ref name=ukcasualties/>}} | |||
== Military situation == | |||
Some problems with this table: As mentioned above, the sources are a mess. I suggest we put in the casualties section each of those year-by-year figures, summing to a total, and put each year's reference there. Then the table can make do without a reference, as it's only summarizing the article body. | |||
Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? ] (]) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
I also note that some of the "sources" are, aside from being bare URLS, just links to Google Docs. We'll have to look more closely and purge the ones which aren't reliable. | |||
== Rudeness == | |||
Thoughts? ] (]) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
Stop the rudeness to iran ] (]) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for this. Two thoughts: (1) I'd be hesitant about taking ''too much'' out of the infobox; we should probably end up with more than "a single, high-level figure for the "Casualties" section of the infobox" (depending on exactly what you mean by that). (2) This work ought to take account of ] and vice versa. ] (]) 11:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:What rudeness are you talking about? ] (]) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== New draft == | |||
::Thank you for the feedback! In order, (1) That's valid. I was thinking the casualties in the infobox would have something like, "Coalition-allied: X killed, Y Wounded", "Iraqui-allied: M killed, N wounded", and "See ]" in a similar grouping to the current infobox. Is that still stripping out too much detail? (2) I agree emphatically. When I get more time, I might see about gathering some legitimate sources from that article to replace some of this mess. ] (]) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::It looks like (2) will probably be a two-way process, so I applaud you for the undertaking! On (1) I agree that killed and wounded is enough. I think it would be important to keep the Iraqi security forces and Awakening separate, but that coalition and contractors can probably be merged, and that we should probably retain "detainees" on the insurgents' side. "Documented deaths from violence" can probably be reduced to a single range. "Statistical estimates" is tricky; getting rid of them entirely seems wrong, but the range of different estimates is so huge (151,000-1,033,000) and that range represents some very different methodologies. ] (]) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::I took a look at the ] article, and oh boy. It also has some majorly messed up citations. I think you're right that it's going to be a two-way street. Given the subject matter of that article, I'm thinking I should start refining that one first, have the more detailed discussions there, and once we have some presentable sections, copy (with attribution) them over to this article. @], would you be willing to take a look from time to time? I'm still pretty new at this, so I'd appreciate an experienced editor's eyes on it to help me avoid mistakes.] (]) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yes, these kinds of specific current event articles are often this. I'm absolutely happy to act as a sounding board as you improve the article (it's actually quite important that articles like this be reliable), but note that I'm in no way a subject expert, so it might also be worth dropping a line to the relevant wikiproject from time to time. ] (]) 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::(what you say about your planned approach is very sensible, imo) ] (]) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
I have an draft ] beacuse section in this article is too long. | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
The draft is not yet completed. ] (]) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== What the hell is wrong with the infobox now? == | |||
== Addition of ] to infobox == | |||
Who thought it was a good idea to oversimplify the infobox and remove most of the insurgent groups that were involved in the fighting? Somebody needs to reverse these changes. ] (]) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Why? ] (]) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{U|Ben Azura}}, with , you would readd ] to the infobox. Per ], the infobox is to summarise key facts ''from the article''. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, ] applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: {{tq|Per ] - not supported by body of article}}. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, ]. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. ] (]) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Something wrong with CS1 == | |||
:I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? ] (]) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Alexeyevitch}} Again, fixing a dash on an eISSN parameter in a citation causes an error message. ] (]) 11:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: ], ], and ]. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{U|Ben Azura}}, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. {{U|Swatjester}}, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. ] (]) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Human Rights Abuses == | |||
Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. | |||
See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture ] (]) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}} | |||
I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed. | |||
Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda" | |||
My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie." | |||
He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. ] (]) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}} | |||
Article is too long shorten it. ] (]) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Should John Howard be added as a leader? == | |||
Seems like it would make sense ] (]) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:What'd he do? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Iraq War: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2014-07-31 Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:
One thing that I think would be extremely relevant would be a timeline of important events; they have much of the information needed for it in the article itself, but it would be easier to read and comprehend if it was contained in a timeline. I also think it should clarify whether there are still U.S. troops in Iraq and what their purpose is there if they are still occupying parts of Iraq. --Tarzane (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Update/correct civilian casualties. Estimates off by several hundred thousand. Ideally use a source other than a media article. |
"Second Persian Gulf War"
Greetings, @Swatjester. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the Iran–Iraq War was known as the First Gulf War, while the Gulf War of 1990–1991 was in fact also known as the Second Gulf War. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this WP:FRINGE name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. Skitash (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with that. The WP:FRINGE claim here is in fact that the Iran-Iraq War is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the Iran-Iraq War article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the Gulf War article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the Iraq War. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the Iran-Iraq War article, not this one. ⇒SWATJester 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the Gulf War article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ⇒SWATJester 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." Dougjaso (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ⇒SWATJester 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." Dougjaso (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
PP
Will we need to ask for page protection if the wp:disruption gets too much? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
suggest we need a section on "political impact"
I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in all the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and all years, right up to the date today.
- so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- ok, thats totally fair. Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as political legacy. As such, it is part of the aftermath. If we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in good quality sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to WP:OR. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what WP:OR means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- from, WP:OR:
- A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
- ...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
- --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning?
(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)- yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning?
- The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
proposed text
here is the proposed text:
- Political impact
The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world.at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.
- United States
By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”
During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,”
The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, JD Vance, labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous.
- United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.
One article in 2023 noted:
By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.
Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war.
References
- "Situation in Iraq". Europarl.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- [On the Iraq war, Jeb Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian.
- Donald Trump, Jeb Bush spar over Bush family legacy, By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News.
- Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush: The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico.
- Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’, BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine.
- How Jeb Bush Triggered an Iraq War Watershed, By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo.
- JD Vance Criticizes Biden’s Support for Iraq War in 2003 But Pushes Hawkish Policy on China & Iran, Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024.
- How Iraq war destroyed UK’s trust in politicians and left Labour in turmoil. Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023.
--Sm8900 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Military situation
Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? Ali aj809 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Rudeness
Stop the rudeness to iran 78.150.125.128 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- What rudeness are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
New draft
I have an draft Draft:Course of the Iraq War beacuse section in this article is too long.
The draft is not yet completed. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Addition of Ayad Allawi to infobox
Ben Azura, with this edit, you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article
. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ben Azura, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. Swatjester, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Human Rights Abuses
Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed. Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"
My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie." He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. 78.146.11.249 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit semi-protected}}
template. Ultraodan (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article is too long shorten it. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Should John Howard be added as a leader?
Seems like it would make sense 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What'd he do? Remsense ‥ 论 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Iraq articles
- Top-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- C-Class Kurdistan articles
- High-importance Kurdistan articles
- WikiProject Kurdistan articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class Countering systemic bias articles
- Unknown-importance Countering systemic bias articles
- Global perspective task force
- WikiProject Countering systemic bias articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- C-Class United States History articles
- High-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists