Talk:2015–2016 Iraqi protests

Splitting article

I propose that this article be split into July 2018 Iraqi Protests, as the protests and riots over the last few days are much more broad than the protests prior to them, and are not necessarily controlled by or related to the Sadr movement's protests from 2015 to the present day. The protests are more violent, and more related to a lack of water and electricity and less so the issues of the previous protests. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - There have now been 8 deaths in the last week of protests, the reasons for protest and the intensity suggest it is a seperate event to the ongoing unrest from 2015, or should at least be covered in more detail, even if it is still considered "part" of this ongoing situation. Murchison-Eye (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - These new protests are significant enough for they're own article. It would just like the split within the 2013–2018 Nicaraguan protests article which led to the creation of 2018 Nicaraguan protests. Charles Essie (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Arabic Wikipedia already has an article. Charles Essie (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

comment the protests have gotten much worse since july, with a quieter period in august; however, I don't think I should split the articles as I am the one who created the discussion Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Update - Arabic Wikipedia has a new article just about the protests in Basra. Charles Essie (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

comment I think I’ll just split the article now, as I have seen no opposition Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Splitting -  DoneGreyShark (dibra) 07:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The United States in the infobox

@Jim7049: Alahad TV is not a suitable source for what should be obvious reasons. Even "allegations" need to be based of something serious in order to warrant a mention in the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

An allegation is an allegation. Just because it is made by Iran doesn't change the fact that it's an allegation. Jim7049 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not all allegations belong in the infobox. Why would the United States support the Sadrist Movement? This only serves to confuse our readers, who don't know how much merit the claim holds (and don't read Arabic). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

US is supporting them because Sadr has cut ties to Iran and is working on removing all Iranian personal from Iraq since the summer. Jim7049 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case, we need a far better source. Not every "allegation" belongs in the infobox (if they did, Israel would be listed as an "alleged supporter" of every combatant of every war the last 70 years...) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well they should be. I can't think of a war in the middle east not involving Israel and US. Jim7049 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a good thing that Wikipedia isn't based on baseless allegations. If you don't have a better source than Alahad TV laying around, I hope you don't mind me removing this claim from the infobox? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Why should Alahad TV be considered bad? Jim7049 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not every allegation belongs in the infobox. It can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but the infobox is not meant to include such trivia as the claims of a TV station with close ties to the IRGC. (For comparison: Turkey claimed that Operation Olive Branch partly targetted ISIS. You don't see ISIS mentioned anywhere in that infobox, because the claim - while made by a main belligerent - was baseless). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of this source [1]. Jim7049 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a superior source. However, the source does not say that the United States supports the demonstrators, it merely states that it generally recognizes the right of people to peacefully protest. Quote: Nauert couched her remarks in such a way as not to criticize the Baghdad government, with which the US has “an excellent relationship.” “The Iraqi government has said that it safeguards the right of its citizens to protest, Nauert continued. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the combination of both these sources would be enough to place an "alleged support" under US section. Trump also said he wants to stay in Iraq to watch Iran so US supporting anti-Iran protests or even allegedly needs a mention. Jim7049 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That's just speculations and original research. Again: This sort of claim can be mentioned in the article, but the infobox is not a list of allegations and speculations. (Note: I'm not necessarily arguing that the US is not supporting the demonstrators, I'm arguing that it has not been proven in any way.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

And it does not need to be proven, it only needs to be alleged, the source doesn't matter. Jim7049 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, not every allegation belongs in the most visible part of an article... Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

And I say it does, so what now? Jim7049 (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What happens now, hopefully, is that you follow WP:BRD and stop edit warring. If a change is contested, then it stays out until there is consensus for it to be added. I have reverted your change as an admin action to enforce BRD. I take no position on the merits of its inclusion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Quoting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. The focus of this article is the protests, not questionable, undocumented allegations. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you realize that the addition of United States does not expand the infobox one bit. There are already 3 additional countries in support, Iran, Baath Party and Saudi Arabia. What you wish to remove US is in regards to the source. However you have not presented a reason for why the source should be discarded other than saying you don't like it. You need a source to call a source unreliable or false. Jim7049 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Anything included in an infobox must be based on 1) verifiable evidence and 2) meet the criteria I cited. This clearly comes short. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Who says the evidence is not verifiable? It say "alleged support" does not even need a full verification. As for the reason you cited, why should other countries be mentioned then? Doesn't the same rule apply for the rest of them? Jim7049 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I hereby allege that the moon is made of cheese. Should I add it to the article? We have to stick to policy, which I have quoted for you. The fact that someone has alleged something does not mean it warrants a mention in the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you cannot add that the moon is made of cheese unless you have a source, and even if you do you would need another source which would allege the contrary, as in a source alleging the moon is not made of cheese. Jim7049 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's easy to cough up a source where someone makes a ridiculous claim of some sort. Read the policy, and ask yourself whether this allegation meets the inclusion criteria. That's all I'm concerned about. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If it said "Support" I would say not, for "Alleged Support" I say yes, and Iranian media alleging US is supporting anti-Iran protests in Iraq is good enough to be mentioned under "Alleged Support". Jim7049 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm done trying to reason with you, so I opened an RfC. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The United States in the infobox

User:Jim7049 insists that an allegation of American involvement belongs in the infobox. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.

Should "alleged" American support for the protestors be mentioned in the infobox? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes: Iranian media claiming US supporting anti-Iran protests in Iraq is good enough to be mentioned under alleged support. Donald Trump also said he wants to stay in Iraq to watch Iran. [2] Jim7049 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It can be included in the article somewhere, but not in the infobox. Again, policy. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - After a quick glance at this, I'm concerned that neither Iranian nor American involvement in the protests seems well sourced. Maybe a solution is just to remove both from the infobox? NickCT (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Furthermore, looking to the line that reads "During the protests in Basra two demonstrators were killed by Iraq's security apparatus, and protesters in Sadr City stormed the headquarters of the Iranian backed Badr Organization."; it looks like at least some Iranian interests have been harmed during these protests. NickCT (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Even furthermore, I'm not sure this article is really titled correctly. Generally, if someone says the word "Protests", they're usually refering to a discrete set of protesters/protests aimed towards the same outcome (e.g. Yellow Vest Protests, Women's March protests). In this article, I think we have a lot of different protesters, protesting a lot of different things, some of which are in opposition to each other. If that's the case, I think this article should probably be called 2015-2019 Iraqi Civil Unrest. Thoughts? NickCT (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Majority of the protests have been aimed at Iran, with the burning of their consulates, setting Iranian flags on fire and burning Ayatollah Khomeni banners. The leader of the protetsts Sadr has expressed his will to remove all Iranian troops and militia from Iraq. Jim7049 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note however, this anti-Iran phase began in mid 2018. Before that protests weren't so large scale neither. Jim7049 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I suggest merging this article with 2018 Iraqi protests as both protests started over poor economic conditions, corruption and lack of water and electricity and both started in Baghdad. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2015 - 18 Iraqi protests which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)