Talk:2007 in Iraq

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 in Iraq 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Iraq Low‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Updating May section

I've added some of the information from the main page re: 2007 events as part of an effort to protect the readability of the Iraq War entry, which is, by all accounts, too long.Benzocane 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of context

This page lacks any account at all of US/UK/Iraqi military operations, nor any strategic or tactical matrix in which the chronicle-entries can be understood. All we have here is a summary of the press' (lazy) reporting, which amounts to tallying up Allied and civilian deaths. In particular there has been no mention of Baghdad neighborhood-clearing operations (whether failed or successful), or of Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Baquba, in which US military sources claim to have inflicted serious losses on AQI. Solicitr 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm going to move some of the more detailed and less relevant items from the Iraq war page to the respective month here to hopefully address some of those concerns. Publicus 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! This page is very one-sided, reflecting US/UK reporting. As well as chronicling the attacks on the US/UK, it should place equal emphasis on attacks by them, and also public sentiment. Even the term "insurgent" is highly emotive -- the French Resistance and the US revolutionaries were in a similar situation to those trying to resist the occupation, and the term is almost never applied to them. LachlanA (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What term do you think is more neutral than "insurgent"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.160.15 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Record Breaker

This is Wikipedia's longest page. And it's pretty crap. Nothing but a list and not much else. I guess the only good thing is that is show how deadly America's war is and what damage they are doing to the world.--Xania ^talk 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's so long that that it's not really even worth reading. It's really just a list of every single thing that ever happened that year. Wizardman 05:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs TRANSCLUSION from smaller pages for each month. This all belongs to an iraq portal. However, it's valuable to note that the density of events decreases towards the end of the year. Schweiwikist (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's because whoever started adding every little detail only got up to May. Had they finished the year it would be nearly 1MB in size. I'd support removing the obviously non-notable stuff before any split. Wizardman 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you all think of splitting this article by month? So we'd have 12 articles (assuming that the latter month sections are incomplete). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive link

Hi !

I'm thinking of removing all the duplicate entries for each day. More precisely, converting:

January 1

A roadside bomb in Mahmudiya killed one soldier and wounded three others.[2]
In Mosul, gunmen killed a family of five, including three children.[3]
Three Iraqi soldiers were killed during clashes with gunmen in Fallujah.[4]
At least 40 dumped bodies were discovered overnight and on Monday.[5]
U.S. forces raided a home they believed was a possible safe house for al Qaeda members; six Iraqi people were killed.[6]

Into

January 1^[1]

A roadside bomb in Mahmudiya killed one soldier and wounded three others.
In Mosul, gunmen killed a family of five, including three children.
Three Iraqi soldiers were killed during clashes with gunmen in Fallujah.
At least 40 dumped bodies were discovered overnight and on Monday.
U.S. forces raided a home they believed was a possible safe house for al Qaeda members; six Iraqi people were killed.

And this for every day. Repeating the link for every event seems useless to me. Any remarks on this?

NicDumZ ~ 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done in the recently created subpages.

NicDumZ ~ 03:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Do these mass edits constitute a violation of policy?

I stumbled upon this talk page after noticing an anonymous user adding copious amounts of information to August–December 2007 in Iraq while removing any possible good news. In my opinion, these edits are in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and probably WP:NPOV, and I had a hand in reverting those edits at that one article before realizing where it started and that it had been going on for some time. Those of you who are watching or have posted on this talk page have probably been thinking about this longer than I, so I was wondering if you think this information should even be on Wikipedia. To be honest, I would probably be in favor of summarizing the information and putting it back together as a single article, and I'd be willing to help, but I was hoping to get some input and maybe reach a consensus. --jhanCRUSH 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support combining them into one year. Having them split by month is a ridiculous case of recentism, and is one of the issues with the site. Not every news story about Iraq needs to be covered. Even a blank revert to befoe the whole article got blown up would be fine. Wizardman 04:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them all back now. We're not paper, but we are certainly not a directory. Wizardman 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]