Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:23, 25 July 2016 editRaphael1 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,734 edits →RFC: What is the subject of this article?← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:28, 25 July 2016 edit undoRaphael1 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,734 edits →RFC: What is the subject of this article?Next edit →
Line 73:		Line 73:
	::*What about this reliable source? It says, that the U.S. lead coalition will provide air support in the battle to retake Fallujah. How is this not considered part of the Iraq war? -- ] 16:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)		::*What about this reliable source? It says, that the U.S. lead coalition will provide air support in the battle to retake Fallujah. How is this not considered part of the Iraq war? -- ] 16:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
	::*Here is another source proving that the U.S. is still fighting in Iraq: -- ] 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)		::*Here is another source proving that the U.S. is still fighting in Iraq: -- ] 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
			::*And another one: Are you still convinced, that U.S. engagement in the Iraq war is over? -- ] 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:28, 25 July 2016

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Template:Vital article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 1, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

A news item involving Iraq War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 September 2010.

Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iraq Top‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Kurdistan High‑importance

	Kurdistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arab world High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Global perspective task force Template:WP1.0

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New Zealand High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

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:

Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.

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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days

New discussion

There's is a new discussion taking place here that affects this article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring needed

Per the above discussion, Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) has been moved to Iraq War (2003–11) which means it's time to implement the other changes we agreed on. Charles Essie (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, Darouet, and Shhhhwwww!!: I could use your help. Charles Essie (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, too busy juggling five articles. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  - I understand. I really need help though. There's a ton of work that needs to be done and there's no way I can do it all on my own. What should I do? Charles Essie (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Try WP:MILITARY. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: Well done. Will get to it later on... Busy in real life...GreyShark (dibra) 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Chilcot Inquiry

In July 2016 the United Kingdom released the Chilcot Inquiry. Would expect there would be a little bit of info added to this article referring to that report. --Everett (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea. For instance the material on civilian casualties is fascinating - e.g. showing that multiple scientific advisories to the British government, from different ministries, concluded that the Lancet casualty reports were sound in methodology, even as British officials like Blair publicly condemned the Lancet findings. -Darouet (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the inquiry to the "Criticism" section, feel free to add more. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: What is the subject of this article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

After the end of foreign combat operations in Iraq, there were numerous discussions on this talk page as to whether the article should reflect the "conclusion" of the "Iraq War" or whether it should treat the conflict as "ongoing" past that point. The prevailing viewpoint was that, according to reliable sources, the terminology "Iraq War" referred to the 2003-2011 multinational, US-led military conflict within Iraq. In other words, while various conflicts continue to this day, "the Iraq War" had ended.

Recently, a handful of editors reached a questionable local "consensus" to fundamentally change the subject of the article; Iraq War would now be an umbrella article for all conflict in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. I've done some research and have come to the conclusion that the reliable sources still do not reflect the notion that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, and thus the article should not do so. Sources discussing the ongoing conflict no longer use the terminology "Iraq War", and sources that do use the term are specifically referring to the concluded multinational conflict of 2003-2011. I can't find anything that indicates that "Iraq War" should refer to all conflict since 2003, nor do I think the input in the last discussion was remotely enough to change the fundamental subject of a prominent and controversial article. It should require a stronger consensus, with more input, and hard evidence, to make such a drastic change.

We should change it back to the previous stance, based on the fact that it was supported by reliable sources, or we should have a stronger consensus to the contrary. Swarm ♠ 22:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Swarm: RfC's must be neutral and concise. The language of your good-faith comment above casts aspersions on the the mere "handful" of editors working here to reach a "questionable" consensus, though this consensus is the same as that arrived at repeatedly by many editors since 2011: that the Iraq war is ongoing. I would encourage you to refactor the RfC and write it neutrally: is the Iraq War ongoing or did it end in 2011?

I nevertheless think that your request to open this to the wider community is legitimate and important. It would be helpful, perhaps in a vote comment below, if you would provide a list of the sources you describe so that I and others can consider them when making a decision. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I will gladly go into more detail as to why I support the viewpoint I do, but as I'm short on time right now I will simply address your procedural complaint: I made the RFC statement as neutral and concise as possible whilst stating my observational take on the situation. Swarm ♠ 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Repeated discussions on this talk page since 2011 have resulted in the same consensus above: that the Iraq war is ongoing, and that 2011 marks a change in the phase of that war, but not the end of it. Note this masterful commentary on this talk page from September 2011 in which everyone, including you Swarm, concluded that the war was ongoing and that the announcement of its end by President Obama meant nothing for the war's reality. Or this discussion from September 2014 where the great majority of editors conclude the same (those who disagreed mostly wrote about article length). The latest discussion here of overall content from November 2014 includes the present, ongoing conflict within the war. The consensus reached here, this very month, concluded that the war is ongoing, and that this article should review all phases of the war, including post-2011. In summary every consensus so far has agreed that the "Iraq War" did not end in 2011 and is ongoing now. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let me reply to your references of the endless discussions regarding this matter. Firstly, my comment you mentioned predates the withdrawal of foreign troops and is thus utterly moot. The reliable sources changed after that point, and after the sources changed, my position did as well. The point that the "Iraq War" is ongoing has indeed been argued since 2011 for obvious reasons. Conflicts did not end with the withdrawal of foreign troops. Why, then, has the article represented the position that it ended in 2011 this entire time? The answer is simple. The criterion for the inclusion of all content on Misplaced Pages is verifiability, based on reliable sources. The reliable sources available did, and still do, reflect my aforementioned point that the term "Iraq War" academically, culturally, and popularly, refers specifically to the US-led foreign intervention between 2003-2011. No one argues that armed conflicts ceased after this time period. However, according to the available sources to which we are indebatably bound, the term "Iraq War" refers to a specific conflict in Iraq that has concluded. If I am wrong, anyone is free to present sources that speak for themselves. Both arguments are understandable. But on a project that errs on the side of sources, the argument that "the Iraq War" encompasses all conflicts in Iraq and is ongoing has simply never been able to be substantiated with reliable sources. I present Exhibit A, one of the most obvious sources to consult with. Another, albeit professional, encyclopedia: Britannica's article on "Iraq War" specifically discusses the 2003-2011 conflict. It lends absolutely no validation to the notion that the term "Iraq War" is used outside of this conflict. Anyone can do a Google search or Google News search. This is most obvious way to seek out sources. Conducting such a search does not reveal any implication that the "Iraq War" is ongoing and that the term does not refer to the 2003-2011 conflict. All the sources I can find seem to agree with the point I'm making. The argument that "the Iraq War" never ended and is ongoing is manufactured by individual opinions. These opinions are understandable from a logical perspective, but do not justify redefining the phrase "Iraq War". They are not supported by reliable sources, period. And again, if I am wrong, I invite all to present their sources, because that is the actual content guideline in play here. Swarm ♠ 05:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What about this reliable source? It says, that the U.S. lead coalition will provide air support in the battle to retake Fallujah. How is this not considered part of the Iraq war? -- Raphael1 16:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is another source proving that the U.S. is still fighting in Iraq: U.S.-led coalition troops seen near front line in new Iraq offensive -- Raphael1 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
And another one: Looming Iraq battle draws in 200 more U.S. troops Are you still convinced, that U.S. engagement in the Iraq war is over? -- Raphael1 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories: