Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

International Law

The German version of this article describes the war as being a violation of international law in the very first lead sentence("Der Irakkrieg ...war eine völkerrechtswidrige Invasion"). Should the English article do the same, or is this not a neutral description? SomePseudonym (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If the German article is properly sourced, you could use those same sources and see how people receive it. I'd be curious to see the text and sources myself. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Most wars can be described as illegal, and most wars including the Iraq War can be described as legal, it's all very subjective. War is an inherently extralegal process, so even the notion of an "illegal war" is not NPOV because declaring something illegal depends on a politicized process, primarily the UN security council voting that a war was illegal. The UN Security Council has not voted the Iraq War illegal, and is unlikely to do so, because of the weight of a US vote against such a measure. Basically whether one regards a war to be illegal just means that one was politically opposed to a war. Many Germans opposed the Iraq War so it's not surprising that the German article is anti-war and consequently declares it to be an illegal war. The biggest factor in whether a war is illegal is whether the war is engaged in "self-defense" which is an extraordinarily subjective notion. American supporters of the Iraq War would assert that the war was fought as a result of the 9/11 attacks which forced the US to invade the Arab middle east in order to occupy bases there from which it could engage jihadist forces directly. Even anti-war US political figures such as John Kerry describe the war in terms of being motivated by a post 9/11 desire to aggressively project US military force into the Arab middle east without the constraints that US bases in Saudi Arabia were under (and the whole WMD issue was a contrivance to justify it to US allies). Whether this counts as self defense depends on whether one regards projecting US force into and against the Arab middle east region as an effective, let alone essential, strategy, which is a highly partisan question. Walterego (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Video: Cheney describes the invasion, war, and aftermath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

Should a summary of that video be included in the article? 2601:283:4403:8012:9C68:B561:A144:9317 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

why are my contributions being removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John O Callaghan2 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

why are my contributions being removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John O Callaghan2 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oil

"There are many problems with this line in the lead. It is unsourced. It is vague (who are the "many", specifically? Scholars? World leaders? The public?) More fundamentally, it is not supported by ANYTHING in the body except Nelson Mandela" —TTAAC

@TheTimesAreAChanging: This I cannot disagree with. Perhaps someone with enough care and time can write something sourced about it. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lancet survey

Given the near-universal agreement by government bodies and scientific observers that it's an inaccurate study, why is it till listed in the casualty box? The other estimates are much closer to each other and have much more solid support by various professionals. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia: 2,000 or 22,000?

Someone changed the Australian involvement from 2,000 to 22,000 in the summary but not in the later text -- without leaving a reference (and identifying themselves only with an IP address). Sadly, the only citation I could find was a broken link. I will revert this recent change. I hope that someone can find a working link -- or the the broken link magically fixes itself (e.g., by a server returning to service). DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a WAR

Congress never declared war against Iraq so this needs to be called Iraq Invasion or Iraq Police Action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.195.254 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Talk:Iraq War Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US Senate" --Aidoboy (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Dates When the Iraq War Began

Those of us that were involved with the Start of the Iraq War KNOW which President was Involved (Who/Whom), Why (Motives), When (Day/Month/Year), Where, How Many (How many of us, the U.S. Military Units, Organizations and U.S. Government Agencies), What (What our Mission was), etc. (like the U.S. Law Declaring War Against Iraq). Nakamuradavid (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:6CE4:F292:8AF5:D721 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is, however, a consensus that this article should become an umbrella article for everything from 2003 to the present and that the Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) article should be expanded and then possibly moved to Iraq War (2003–11). Jenks24 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Iraq War → Iraq War (2003-11) – There is already a two year-long successive civil war in Iraq, being referred to as "Iraq War" [1],[2] and often "New Iraq War" [3],[4],[5]. In order to fix this situation and differ the 2003-11 conflict and 2014-present conflict we should add dates to this article. GreyShark (dibra) 15:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho, 65.94.43.89, Jrcrin001, YeOldeGentleman, Red Slash, Darouet, Charles Essie, Coltsfan, Rreagan007, RightCowLeftCoast, Shhhhwwww!!, DimensionQualm, and Jenks24: participants of previous rename discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. There can only be one Iraq War (proper noun). If you have to parenthetically disambiguate it, then it's probably not a proper noun. Why we shouldn't be in a hurry to upper case ongoing conflicts: historians may not yet have settled on a name. There is no World War. There are two world wars, World War I and World War II. "(2003-11)" is an unlikely proper name for a war. Before the second world war, the first war was called the Great War. Now that there's a new war, what are historians calling the first one? wbm1058 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Good point - the sources specifically refer to it as Iraq War (2003-11) - see University of Florida and University of Oregon references to the issue.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Then I would use a comma, as 2003-11 is not for disambiguation, but rather is a necessary part of the Proper Name of the War, which seems to be Iraq War, 2003–11. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - perhaps it could be an idea to develop Iraq War into an umbrella articles for all those three phases of the Iraq war.GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I would support that, Greyshark09. -Darouet (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I would too. Charles Essie (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support umbrella term and this move. This has been a long time coming. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Charles Essie. Perhaps there should be separate articles for each phase of the conflict, but that kind of splitting should be predicated upon the maintenance of a good summary of the whole conflict, from 2003-present. The war began with an invasion by US military forces, and those forces have at all times, to a greater or lesser extent, continued operations in the country. A civil war broke out within the first year of the war, and has repeatedly intensified and abated since. There is no good reason for Wikipedia to declare the war over in 2011, coinciding with the public announcement of the withdrawal of most combat troops by the United States. That was an announcement, but the reality is that for people in Iraq, everything that has followed remains a part of the war that began in 2003. If a new article should be created to deal with US military operations 2003-2011, so be it, but a move is not justified. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a very interesting suggestion - simply moving material from here to Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) and moving it to Iraq War (2003–11), while making this Iraq War article into the umbrella article for all the three successive events - Iraq War (2003–11), the 2011–13 insurgency and the 2014–present civil war.GreyShark (dibra) 12:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand that supporters of this proposal are Charles Essie, Darouet, Shhhhwwww!! and myself.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wbm1058 and Coltsfan: what do you think?GreyShark (dibra) 12:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It might work, but i'm still not sure. Would this be like the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) article but covering only 2003-2011 or 'until present'? Coltsfan (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It would cover the entire war from 2003 to the present. Charles Essie (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You than seem to "open a can of worms" as to when the conflict really began, did it begin in 2003, or how about 1990/1991 when "Desert Shield"/"Desert Storm" occurred, or maybe 1980 when the "Iran/Iraq War" started, or maybe even at a date earlier than that. It is really not a fair comparison with the "War in Afghanistan" since that has all been part of a larger Civil War within Afghanistan which has been going on since 1978 (there has not been a long standing Iraq Civil War). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:74E5:7BF3:50C3:3E3F (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It began in 2003 because they've been in a state of constant war since then. There was no constant state of war between the Iran–Iraq War and the Gulf War, or between the latter and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Charles Essie (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion will not result in a move considering that most people here (including myself) have become more interested in GreyShark's alternative proposal. So when this discussion is closed at some point I think we should resume it at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) per GreyShark's proposal. Charles Essie (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

@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)

There was weapons of mass destruction

The government and John Howard claimed there was, and government claims are treated as fact in other pages so can we have the same standard applied here. Gov said therefore its true and therefor WMD existed in iraq!--A12bc34be5 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to automatically treat any claim made by any government as true. We work with reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC: What is the subject of this article?

There is consensus here that the title Iraq War covers the war from 2003 to 2011 (i.e that the Iraq War ended in 2011). By my count four editors agree with this and two oppose. While a clear majority the numbers responding are low so the power of the result is low also. However the strength of argument favours those agreeing with the 2003 - 2011 designation. While plenty of sources have been found that say that the war is ongoing, something all editors agree with, none specifically term it the Iraq War. Also many other editors were pinged and for whatever reason chose not to respond. I also read Talk:Iraq War/Archive 32#Requested move 23 June 2016 and I believe that the spirit of that consensus can be respected as well as this one by moving and/or renaming this article and potentially the Iraq War (2003–11) one. Discussion seems to have started on how to do this near the end of this rfc and this should continue. AIRcorn (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia 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.[6] 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)
  • As Pincrete explains below, you've completely and utterly ignored my point. I even specifically said that no one is arguing that the conflicts are over. The point is that the ongoing conflicts are not considered to be part of the "Iraq War", which, based on reliable sources, refers to the 2003-2011 conflict. Swarm ♠ 18:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swarm: after looking into the matter more carefully I still just can't agree with you. Contrary to what you write, media and even writers affiliated with the government are highly ambivalent about whether ongoing fighting in Iraq, (which everyone agrees has continued since 2003, with a slowdown in 2011-12), is a part of the same "Iraq War," or a different and new war. High quality media all agree that we remain at war in Iraq. An overview article here, with another article dedicated to the 2003-11 phase of conflict, could capture the complexity of this continuing story. Simply removing the overview article is not justified by sources and is a rash action in the face of continued, and continuous, fighting.
You're right that your own personal comment dates to 2011, but you did not address later discussion in 2014, when a great many editors who remain active concluded, not without some disagreement, that the Iraq War was ongoing. Those editors included Coltsfan, Mikrobølgeovn, Charles Essie, RightCowLeftCoast, Freepsbane, Thucydides411, FutureTrillionaire, XavierGreen, Colipon and The Four Deuces. That same year, the Congressional Research Service published an account of Iraq War spending that tallied operational costs from 2012-14 within the overall cost of the "Iraq War," even as their report noted that the DoD considers the war to have ended in 2010.
Those sources and editors may have changed their mind since then, but US involvement has escalated dramatically since, and sources remain highly ambiguous about the various phases of conflict, and which remain a part of the Iraq War. I've written a longer commentary below explaining in greater detail. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Darouet: Pinging editors you think will agree with you...wow, you're really quite desperate, aren't you? Regardless, the sources are quite literally unequivocal. There is no grey area, there is no disagreement, there is no debate, the reliable sources do use the terminology in the way that I'm saying they do. Like I've said numerous times, editors have long argued that the Iraq War never ended, and their viewpoint is understandable, but the viewpoint is not supported by reliable sources. It never has been, which is why "war is over" has always been the status quo in spite of editors' personal views. It's clear at this point that your own POV is overshadowing your neutrality because you're literally not responding to logical points being made, you're just not hearing it. Shocking that someone with such a POV has been able to skew an article so much. Having made your points quite excessively, I'd advise you to recuse yourself from this discussion and let other editors weigh in. I'm primarily seeking the uninvolved community's feedback. Swarm ♠ 17:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swarm: Accusing me of canvassing and desperation is a personal attack. I pinged all editors who have previously participated in these conversations, and those include people who've argued the Iraq War ended in 2011. It would be decent for you to apologize. -Darouet (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, I've hardly edited this article in a long time, and am certainly not responsible for its current scope. I have simply advocated, in past discussions, the larger scope agreed upon by other editors. I wish you would engage with sources (other than your single Britannica source) instead of participating in this conversation only by launching personal attacks. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment , Raphael1 you are asking and answering completely the wrong question. None of these sources immediately above refer to 'Iraq War'. The question is not whether US or other troops continue to be militarily engaged in 2016 in, and around, Iraq. The question is what do RS, academic works and quality news sources mean when the say 'Iraq war', do they think the war finished around yearX, and what name do they give to any subsequent conflict which might be briefly covered as "aftermath" in this article. I am not going to 'vote' since I don't know enough, though my impression is that UK sources do not use this term for present conflict. Attempting to construct an argument based on 'fighting is still happening, so the Iraq War is ongoing', is pure WP:OR. Looking at the sources offered in previous discussions, I form the impression that, at the very, very least, it is a matter of cosiderable dispute whether the term applies beyond year X. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete: far more sources have to be presented to demonstrate that the Iraq War ended in 2011. That is the date when reliable sources state that the US withdrew all combat troops; most sources do not state that the war ended at that time, and many imply it has continued. The DoD uses an entirely different date to mark an end to the Iraq War - 2010 - and has continued US military operations in Iraq under three separate official operations since that time. The Congressional Research Service and US military thinktank CSIS calculate operations from 2012, 2013 and 2014 as within the costs of the "Iraq War" before the launching of the air and ground campaign against ISIS. Meanwhile, sources like the NYT write that the US has remained at war through Obama's tenure. An overview article, Iraq War, can review all this while Iraq War (2003-11) deals with that specific phase. We shouldn't however here declare the conflict as finished on our own. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
'Remained at war' isn't the same as the same war. The sources offered confirm my impression that 'Iraq war' is a proper noun for a certain period and it would be improper to use that term beyond that period. If a parent article 'Wars in Iraq' were needed, so be it, though a simpler solution would be to find a term to cover the ongoing conflict, linked from this one. Pincrete (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
We need sources to confirm that "impression." The DoD states the Iraq War ended in 2010. The Obama administration declared combat operations over in 2011. Throughout 2012-present intense fighting has continued and many sources imply this is a part of an ongoing war. As of autumn 2014 the wikipedia community was firmly convinced the war was ongoing. So, what sources do you have that demonstrate the war ended in 2011, specifically? You need to present these to convince others. -Darouet (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • August 1st, still waiting on any reliable sources to support the change to "Iraq War ongoing". The way it was before was reliably sourced. Swarm ♠ 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - based on Swarm's research, I can't argue with the logic that "the term "Iraq War" academically, culturally, and popularly, refers specifically to the US-led foreign intervention between 2003-2011." I can't see using Iraq War based on the sources in the same way as The Troubles are used, as the current sources on the conflict of Iraq no longer refer to an "Iraq War" as ongoing - terms like "conflict" are used instead, not a specific title. It is my personal assumption the media made this distinction because there seemed a time when a new Iraqi government was functioning, which is typically assumed to herald a successful conclusion to a civil war or country-wide conflict, at least in the media's view. So in short, I think including the Iraq War as one time period in the larger timeline of "conflict in Iraq" works fine, is accurate based on sources, and is clear to readers. Yvarta (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually even 'the troubles' relates to a specific period, usually late 60s to Good Friday agreement. Mostly low level conflict existed sporadically before that period and there have been occasional violent acts since, nonetheless the term refers usually solely to that period. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree on US-led coalition military campaign of 2003-2011 being the "Iraq War", as a proper noun, per WP:COMMONNAME, per sources. I agree that may not be wholly precise, but my opinion doesn't matter more than any other editor's. We can certainly devote a couple paragraphs on the current conflicts in an "Aftermath"-like section, and list these in the infobox "Results", but that's only to better frame the current subject, not "improve" the definition of the Iraq War on a quest for WP:TRUTH. Full details of those conflicts belong in other articles. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Disagree I don't understand your point. How do you call the ongoing U.S. military engagement in Iraq? "Iraq peace"? (It's not a conflict, if you try to drop MK80 bombs to solve it.) --Raphael1 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If all sources call the current conflict the "Iraq War" (as a proper noun), then we must also. If they don't, we cannot, however "warlike" we feel it is. If many but not all sources call it this, then let's evaluate them together and sort it out. But if only a few sources do this, then we can't call the current conflict the "Iraq War", per WP:UNDUE. We'd have to find another name and another article for the majority of the coverage for the current conflict (which, yes, can be "conflict" since that's what sources commonly use for all sorts of military conflicts). Again, a couple paragraphs in an aftermath section with proper links there and in "results" to the full coverage is fine. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: I agree that we should follow reliable sources, but they are highly ambiguous on whether current fighting in Iraq is a part of the "Iraq War," and most sources agree that we have remained at war in Iraq. Even the the CRS and the military thinktank CSIS describe the "Iraq War" as including operations and costs extending well past 2011. Prudence would dictate keeping an overview article with the 2003-11 phase, but not pre-empting sources to declare the "Iraq War" over by editorial fiat. -Darouet (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"...follow reliable sources, but..."? That "but" is exactly the path to editorial fiat. Again, if the sources conflict on the precise use of the proper noun "Iraq War", let's list and evaluate them. Declaring what's "prudent" won't get consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That "but" is also the path towards a wikipedia-brokered end of the war. I invite you to find sources demonstrating an end to the Iraq War - for each I find, usually in a cursory reference, there are others that say no such thing. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think at this point it might be relevant to distinguish between "Iraq War" and "the war in Iraq." There are many cases where a War ostensibly ended even though the violence didn't actually abate, and warring continued after some changes in players and combatants. Often a government/media will stop calling a conflict a war for legal reasons (i.e. calling invasions "peacekeeping missions"), and so I think in many ways a war's scope is defined not by violence, but by how the media distinguishes a particular era in a political conflict (i.e. the Iraq War was over when the Americans felt they like were no longer at war, and stopped referring to the Iraq War in the media to downplay the conflict in favor of hard-earned peace and success). Since we're still in that transition phase (a few years only since the Iraq War ended) and can't yet look back with historical perspective and hindsight, all we can do if compile the sources, as A D Monroe III points out, and try to accurately summarize the body of reporting. Yvarta (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree Yvarta, but we've yet to see any demonstration, via sources, that the Iraq War has ended. Just saying it has here doesn't make it so. -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
But Darouet I must ask, who decides when that war is over? Where do we look for the final word? Do we look at American press conferences, how politicians refer to it? Do we turn to Iraqi politicians? Do we turn to academic experts on war? Do we turn to Fox News? And who, for that matter, decided that Korean War was Over? How many years after was that decided, five years, ten years? It will likely be very long time before historians look back and assign a particular date to the end of the Iraq War. And frankly, it isn't practical for us as Wikipedians to wait indefinitely for historians to make a decision. We need to look at the body of reporting in reputable sources, and I believe Swam has made a very good argument that sources, at large, no longer refer to an Iraq War as ongoing, but rather referring to an ongoing war in Iraq, a very important distinction that isn't accidental. It would be accurate, at this point, to end the issue with "most mainstream news stations by 2013 had stopped referring to an Iraq War as ongoing, despite noting ongoing conflicts." And if you feel this isn't accurate, we can always add in "other media outlets have continued to refer to a war in Iraq as ongoing, although the term Iraq War is generally no longer used." I can't help but notice that not a single source brought to the table explicitly refers to an ongoing Iraq War in the past few years. So frankly, depicting the war as ongoing seems an egregrious break of WP:Balance, as the idea that the war is ongoing is clearly a minority view among journalists (and more so, doesn't seem to be an opinion at all). Yvarta (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (←) Darouet, I literally presented Britannica as a reference and you have the audacity to claim that you haven't seen any sources?! Are we seeing this people? This is the kind of personal bias that led to the change in the first place. The most stringent opponent of changing it back has no sourcing to support himself, and yet ignores the sources I've presented and claims they don't exist. This is not reasonable behavior. Darouet your argument is out of line with policy. Swarm ♠ 17:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swarm: First, I have mentioned your Britannica reference multiple times, but one source isn't enough. There's no reason to get hysterical. Second, I presented a whole series of sources below that suggest the Iraq War is ongoing, whatever your view of them. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Those sources imply a war in Iraq is ongoing, not the Iraq War. So far, only the only refs pertinent to this RfC are Swarm's. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion - Is the Iraq War ongoing?

Swarm has opened an RfC above that questions the recent decision not to move this article to Iraq War (2003-11). That discussion, which included Greyshark09, wbm1058, Charles Essie, Shhhhwwww!!, Coltsfan, Red Slash and Jenks24, ultimately decided to retain Iraq War as an overview article, containing "Iraq War (2003-11)" as a phase of conflict within it." I am pinging a few others who've come to the RfC: A D Monroe III, Raphael1 and Pincrete.

Swarm's argument is that reliable sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, describe the war as ending in 2011. After reading many articles on the topic, my conclusion is that all sources describe the US removal of most military forces in 2011, and some describe the war as ending then. However, many sources are ambiguous about whether the war actually ended, and all describe us as still being at war in Iraq (whether this is a new war, or the same war, left unclear). Pertinent examples:

Anthony Cordesman writes for the US military's official thinktank the Center for Strategic and International Studies, this spring, that Iraq has witnessed "what is now some thirteen years of war."[1]

In this case, the "cost of the Iraq War" includes 2003-14, when the report is published. The Congressional Research Service report justifies that language. While the report states that the US DOD considers the "Iraq War" to mean 2003-10, it calculates the cost of the "Iraq War" through continued operations into 2014, and notes that Obama has requested a major influx of new funds to fight ISIS.[2]

Multiple, highly reliable media sources refer to Obama's tenure as one of continuous warfare in Iraq, note that America remains at war in Iraq, and never describe the "end of the Iraq War." For example the New York Times wrote two pieces this spring stating that the United States remains at war in Iraq, without clarifying whether the war ever ended at some point, but certainly implying that Obama has been at war in Iraq throughout his tenure.[3][4] NPR writes that while Obama pledged to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he "finds himself entangled in three," again wholly ambiguous about whether this is a new war in Iraq, or the same one.[5]

A good example of a contrary view is provided by Mark Thompson at TIME magazine, who calls current fighting in Iraq a part of the "Third Iraq War."[6]

Everyone here acknowledges that Wikipedia should proceed conservatively and describe this conflict as reliable sources do. Notwithstanding declarations by the DoD and Brittanica's decision, too many highly reliable sources, including some intimately close to the US government, describe the US as still at war in Iraq, and too few write that the war ever ended. It is very early to write conclusively about this in the absence of high quality sources and ongoing fighting. I don't believe we should end the war by encyclopedic fiat, and without strong sources to back us up. Keeping this overview article to describe all phases of conflict is the conservative and correct course of action, for now. Such an action would not require deleting the article Iraq War (2003-11), but would also prevent us from getting ahead of reliable sources, and keep an overview article. -Darouet (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cordesman, Anthony (13 May 2016). "U.S. Strategy and the War in Iraq and Syria". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Iraq has just seen one of its most horrifying days of terrorism in what is now some thirteen years of war. In another piece Cordesman describes the cost of US conflict in the "Iraq War" as continuous from 2003-14, while citing the work of "Amy Belasco of the Congressional Research Service, who has attempted to cost the Afghan and Iraq Wars on the basis of the budgets for U.S. Overseas Contingency Operations Reports. These studies provide the core of official U.S. reporting on the cost of the wars through FY2014."}}
  2. ^ Balasco, Amy (8 December 2014). "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11". Congressional Research Service. Changing Troop Levels in Iraq, 2003-2014: Six months after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, U.S. troop levels reached 149,000 troops in-country. By December 2003, troop levels fell to 124,000 and remained at about that level for the next three years. In January 2007, then-President Bush initiated the Iraq surge in response to growing levels of violence and a request for assistance in fighting insurgents, referred to as the "Sunni Awakening." The "Iraq surge" peaked at 165,000 troops in November 2007. As levels of violence fell by July 2008, then-President Bush began to reverse the surge and troop levels declined to 147,000 (Figure 1). After President Obama took office in January 2009, the Administration conducted a strategy review of both the Afghan and Iraq wars. In that review, the President decided to shift U.S. forces in Iraq from a combat to an advisory and assistance role, and reduce troop levels from 141,000 in March 2009 to about 50,000 by September 2010. The bilateral security agreement at that time required that all U.S. troops be withdrawn by December 31, 2011. Although the United States hoped to revise that agreement and retain some troops beyond 2011, the Iraqi government refused to sign a new agreement that would shield U.S. troops from local law, so all U.S. troops were withdrawn by December 31, 2011. There are currently 100 to 200 U.S. military personnel in Iraq to manage arms sales. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. ^ Landler, Mark (14 May 2016). "For Obama, an Unexpected Legacy of Two Full Terms at War". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016. If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama's term — a near-certainty given the president's recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war... Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm's way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action... But Mr. Obama has found those conflicts maddeningly hard to end. On Oct. 21, 2011, he announced that the last combat soldier would leave Iraq by the end of that year, drawing that eight-year war to a close. "Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays," Mr. Obama said at the White House. Less than three years later, he told a national television audience that he would send 475 military advisers back to Iraq to help in the battle against the Islamic State, the brutal terrorist group that swept into the security vacuum left by the absent Americans. By last month, more than 5,000 American troops were in Iraq. A furious firefight this month between Islamic State fighters and Navy SEALs in northern Iraq, in which Special Warfare Operator First Class Charles Keating IV became the third American to die since the campaign against the Islamic State began, harked back to the bloodiest days of the Iraq war. It also made the administration's argument that the Americans were only advising and assisting Iraqi forces seem ever less plausible.
  4. ^ Schmidt, Michael (14 May 2016). "U.S. Combat Missions May End, but Fighting Goes On". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2016. President Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor, George W. Bush, and has struggled to wind them down. American troops are still in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but their missions have changed and there are far fewer troops in combat than at the heights of those wars a decade ago... Mr. Obama declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq in 2010, and the one in Afghanistan in 2014. But we still have thousands of troops in both countries... The White House does semantic cartwheels to say neither mission is combat... Pentagon officials roll their eyes at such denial, and senior officials — including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — have publicly called it combat.
  5. ^ Myre, Greg (15 October 2015). "Pledging To End Two Wars, Obama Finds Himself Entangled In Three". National Public Radio. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Here's a quick look at U.S. involvement in three ongoing wars… Obama's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan comes in the wake of the bitter experience in Iraq, where all U.S. combat forces were withdrawn at the end of 2011. It was relatively calm at the time, and Iraq's leaders opposed a continued U.S. military presence after almost nine years of a U.S. occupation that peaked at well over 100,000 troops. But as the Islamic State roared into western and northern Iraq in the summer of 2014, Obama felt compelled to launch a limited air campaign against the extremist group. The U.S. now has more than 3,000 military personnel in Iraq. The Americans are focused on the airstrikes and are not permitted to take part in ground combat.
  6. ^ Thompson, Mark (10 September 2014). "The Obstacles in Obama's New ISIS Plan". TIME. The first U.S. war against Iraq began in 1991 with 37 days of nonstop bombing. The second Iraq war unleashed 2,500 air missions in the first 24 hours in 2003. The third Iraq war—declared by President Barack Obama in an address to the nation Wednesday night, where he expanded it to include Syria—is trading "shock and awe" for what Obama says will be a "comprehensive and sustained" military campaign.
  • Comment One ref above says "Iraq has witnessed "what is now some thirteen years of war", no doubt true, and quite a few other conflicts before those 13 years. Vietnam probably experienced war almost continuously between 1940 and 1972, that doesn't mean that any one of the conflicts lasted 32 years or had a single name. Another source refers to 3 Iran wars, others use other terms for present, ongoing conflict. These sources confirm my impression that 'The Iraq war' is ordinarily a singular term referring to the invasion and occupation and that the article should reflect that. Nobody is trying to deny that there is ongoing US involvement, but it should be covered in other articles or a 'parent' 'Wars in Iraq' be created. All the wars in former Yugoslavia are 'linked', that does not mean they were the same conflict. Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the comment, that Iraq has witnessed some thirteen years of war, is typical in that it is highly ambiguous. It is too early to declare, right now, that sources call the war over: they don't. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The sentence isn't at all ambiguous. It says Iraq has witnessed 13 years of war, it doesn't say the Iraq war has lasted 13 years. It supports what I and others are saying Iraq war is not the same thing as war in/involving Iraq. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So? I agree that sources say the "war" (lower-case) continues. I agree that sources say the cost of the "Iraq War" continues. I don't agree any of these sources say the "Iraq War" (capitalized proper noun, the name of this article in WP) continues. I'm okay with creating "2nd Iraq War", "3rd Iraq War" or "Iraq wars (20xx)" or whatever articles -- even "Iraq wars in the 21st century" to cover them all. But this whole section has no bearing on the RfC. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Monroe, if the Iraq War has ended, I am willing to acknowledge that, provided sources confirm it. In the past, many editors working on this page have concluded it is ongoing, because sources say that combat troops were withdrawn, not that the war ended. What is missing in this RfC is any presentation of sources to overturn past consensus. I know that it takes a lot of work to find sources and convince others. But, without that work, nobody will be convinced by an argument about the capitalization of a W, or an editor's say-so alone. -Darouet (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, no editor's say-so is used. It's based on COMMONNAME for the subject and sources. A proper noun, by definition, is quite a distinct subject from common nouns; Great Lakes is not about "all lakes that are great".
I agree that a detailed review of sources would be welcome and a lot of work. But, given that the work done in this section to find opposing sources came up dry, I'm convinced as it stands. All the sources I've seen refer to the subject of this article as something in the past. It's hard to prove something doesn't exist. I must assume the reason we can't easily find such sources is that they are, at best, overwhelmingly insignificant and UNDUE. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It can't be so much to ask for some sources. -Darouet (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Your wall of text and references still fail to answer to my very simple point that the terminology "Iraq War" refers to a specific aspect of the conflicts in Iraq that is concluded, and if anything further goes to show that you're misrepresenting what the sources say in order to push your own personal view that the "Iraq War" is still ongoing. I don't know how many times you're going to make me repeat myself. Also starting a second discussion when there is an ongoing RfC is generally regarded as shady. Swarm ♠ 16:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I placed the second discussion here so that we could evaluate sources separately, and avoid obscuring more concise arguments made by other editors in your RfC. It was not made to begin a second section in case the RfC result agrees with you. I see that you or Pincrete have moved this section into a "discussion" portion of the RfC, and that's fine with me. You should assume good faith and not accuse me of being "shady:" every comment you've made today includes personal attacks. Step back from that - it's not worth it.
I stand by my interpretation of the sources above, which indicate that the Iraq War did not end in 2011. To you it may be a "wall of text" but to me those are the reliable sources we need to consult to address the question you've asked in your RfC. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - For what it's worth, the French, German and Italian wikipedias all declare the Iraq War as over in 2011 (and then describe the "aftermath", as Swarm proposes we do here). I know we don't cite Wikipedia, but I thought their examples might give an indication of what reliable sources in other languages are saying. -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find this really interesting, Darouet. I popped some into Google Translate to look them over, and maybe some of that foreign content could be used to help build a more clear "aftermath" section for this page, as compared to this page serving as a parent for basically all recent Iraqi conflicts. I imagine splitting the page off at Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) might make sense? As is, the page overall seems very slanted towards an American viewpoint, no surprise of course, so I wonder if bringing in French/German/Al Jazeera type perspectives might help readers get a world perspective on when the Iraq War was overtaken by new names for "new" conflicts. Thoughts, perhaps? Yvarta (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering the argument shown here of what the Iraq War continues and that the involvement of the United States never ended, because then divided the war in Afghanistan in two articles (War in Afghanistan (2001–14) and War in Afghanistan (2015–present))? In this case is the same situation: President Obama declared the end of combat operations, but the West remains involved in this conflict.--177.68.221.135 (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment A difficult one, while i personally believe that the conflict ended in '11, however, I believe the best way to resolve the issue is to seperate the two, have Iraq War (2003-2011) and "War in Iraq" perhaps as the new one. Iazyges (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal because it would implement a solution broadly compatible with both arguments. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Darouet (talk · contribs) If it were put in place, what do you think the seperate article's name should be? Insurgency in Iraq(2011-current), War in Iraq(2011-current), Conflict in Iraq (2011-current) or else Iraq war (2011-current)? Iazyges (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I see essentially three qualitatively different phases:
  1. US-led coalition's war with the government of Saddam Hussein
  2. Counterinsurgency during a period of quasi-civilian sectarian violence
  3. War against ISIS by the Republic of Iraq and Peshmerga, with limited US support
These should each be a separate topic, and "Iraq War" should be a disambiguation page linking to those three, plus Desert Storm and the Iran-Iraq War. Rhoark (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section of this article is the same of the Iraq War (2003–11). I don't think that is good at all. Someone should change that. Peace out! Coltsfan (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Coltsfan: we have a whole discussion about what the scope of this article should be above. If you have any comment it's appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I was the one that changed the lead of Iraq War (2003–11). As Darouet suggests, it's because of the recent discussions on the scope of this article. You're right that it's not good, I'm just waiting on the scope discussion to close and then depending on the result I'll either change the lead of this article to include events beyond 2011, or I'll change Iraq War (2003–11) back to the way it was when the topic was Iraqi insurgency (2003–11). --Cerebellum (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done Iraq War (2003–11) moved back to Iraqi insurgency (2003–11), and info in this article on events after 2011 consolidated. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Have proposed it in the first place, I know think it was a mistake to turn this into an umbrella article. Perhaps such an article could be created separately but in the mean time I support Cerebellum's decision. I do however have another proposal (there's a link to it below). Charles Essie (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Other name

It's also known as the Second Gulf War. (AlexanderShatolv (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

See the footnote to the first sentence. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

@Thucydides411: for adding the PLOS study, with asterisks to indicate total deaths due to conflict. In the discussion of the PLOS paper, they actually provide some commentary on why their finding may well be an underestimate, compared to the Lancet papers. They indicate that family break-up and emigration, which especially affect those in the most hard-hit areas, is one cause. Another is the passage of time, or political factors including fear of retaliation. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Robert Gates.

I stopped wondering why these individuals have such a tendency to coin goodfeel 'phrases'.

Instead of those ' operation nomer thy feelgood ' why don't they just come out and state:

'Operation P.ISS ON HU.SSEIN and RIP HIS GO.DDAM.NED CARCASS APART'.

That is easier to manage for all concerned then any of those bu.llsh.it feel good rub my er.ect.um while I stroke myself statements.

Any of you wiki ans can pass that statement directy to the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.64.164 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The war began St. Patrick's Day(March 17) 2003. I can not be mistaken about this because I was in a waiting room, awaiting the birth of my second nephew, when first reports of the invasion were on the news. I'm reminded of this error in history every year since. The military tactically chose a drinking holiday to swell national pride and buoy the troops and this fact has not been represented in the history books since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.33.142 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What ENGVAR is this article written in?

Spellings seem to be all over the map, with "organise" and "organize" both visible. The date formats in the article text seem to be by-and-large day-month-year, but this is not the case for the refs. Does the fact that the invasion was led by the U.S. mean WP:TIES applies? I'm not even sure one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Iraq War v Iraq Invasion

CityOfSilver I got that from the source too, (I had to translate it, nein sprechen der Danish), but the article is about the Iraq War, not just the invasion. So shouldn't Danish forces be listed, if in the second part rather than the first? L3X1 (distant write) 14:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: I saw that Denmark was listed under a heading reading "Invasion phase" and the dates didn't add up. Now that I think about it, I don't see a problem with restoring the text I removed under the "Post-invasion" heading. CityOfSilver 15:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Umbrella article created

After numerous discussions and consensus to create one, an umbrella article for the entire Iraq conflict (2003–present) has finally been created. However, it needs a great deal of work and I am seeking help in expanding it. Charles Essie (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Needed information in article

There should be a brief mention of the "Moment of Truth" summit in the Azores. Bush, Blair, and Aznar flew to the Azores. Had a very short meeting. Decided that there would be war and all of them left. It was supposed to be a dramatic show of force to Saddam.

It is not held in Washington because Blair didn't want to be seen running to the Washington like "Mommy, may I have some chocolate?". Bush didn't want to be seen dictating to others from the White House. Aznar was needed to show that the UK was not alone on its side of the Atlantic. 3 heads of states, with their big jets, arriving at about the same time was supposed to be dramatic. It was. The summit was maybe two hours then the 3 heads of states jetted out. Actually, the Portuguese prime minister also came as host. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_32&oldid=1142351887"