Misplaced Pages

Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:21, 12 August 2007 editVeggies (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,322 edits →No updates since March: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors62,051 edits →Should John Howard be added as a leader?: rm dupe 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{controversial}}
{{American English}}
{{Global perspective task force}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=September 1, 2006 |action1date=September 1, 2006
|action1result=failed |action1result=failed
|action1link=/Archive 4#GAC |action1link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 4#GAC
|action1oldid=73281431 |action1oldid=73281431
|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
Line 13: Line 13:
|action2result=failed |action2result=failed
|action2oldid=107945964 |action2oldid=107945964
|action2link=/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold |action2link=Talk:Iraq War/Archive 10#GA nomination on hold
|currentstatus=FGAN |currentstatus=FGAN
|itndate=1 September 2010
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{calm talk}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=c |B-1=y |B-2=n |B-3=y |B-4=y |B-5=y |US=yes |Middle-Eastern=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=Top}}
|1={{WPTCT}}
{{WikiProject Kurdistan|importance=High}}
|2={{WPMILHIST|class = B|War-on-Terrorism-task-force=yes}}
|3={{WP Iraq|class = B|importance =Top}} {{WikiProject Arab world|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|global perspective=yes}}
|4={{WPKU|class = B|importance = High}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=High}}
|5={{Global perspective task force}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USMIL=yes|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}
|6={{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}}
}} }}
{{To do|collapsed=yes}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Socsci}}
{{Annual readership}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{Section sizes}}
|-
{{User:MiszaBot/config
! rowspan="2" valign="top"|
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
! align="left" |
|maxarchivesize = 100K
<big> ] for ]:</big>
|counter = 35
|-
|minthreadsleft = 4
| colspan="2" valign="top" style="background:#FFEFDF; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Use <nowiki> <s> and </s></nowiki> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:
|algo = old(183d)
|archive = Talk:Iraq War/Archive %(counter)d}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}


== "Second Persian Gulf War" ==
*convert "200x in Iraq" articles (x==2...7 e.g. ]) to ]
*Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article
*Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
|}
{{offtopic}}
{{notice|A discussion is in progress to reach '''consensus''' on what the lead picture will be on the main page. Everyone is welcome to participate ''']'''. Please refrain from opening new discussions on the matter or debating outside outside this section.}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
'''Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.'''


Greetings, @]. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the ] was known as the First Gulf War, while the ] of 1990–1991 was in fact ]. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this ] name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. ] (]) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. ] (]) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:I strongly disagree with that. The ] claim here is in fact that the ] is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the ] article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the ] article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the ]. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the ] article, not this one. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the ] article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." ] (]) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
==PP==
Will we need to ask for page protection if the ] gets too much? ] (]) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)


==Criticism section: Professor Chip Pitts== == suggest we need a section on "political impact" ==


I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. ] (]) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a lengthy paragraph in the intro to the criticisms section that describes the views of Professor Chip Pitts. This seems like , especially because Pitts is talking about much broader issues than what this section is about. This section is about criticisms of the prosecution of the war. Pitts is talking about U.S. foreign policy in general. I woudl like to remove this paragraph, but want to propose doing so before I make the change. I think I have removed it before and someone put it back in, so I welcome their thoughts on why it belongs. Cheers --] 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. ] (]) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::obviously it seems that you ] this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read ]. ] (]) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in ''all'' the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and ''all'' years, right up to the date today.
::::::so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. ] (]) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? ] (]) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., ] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. ] (]) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the change.--] 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


:ok, thats totally fair. ] (]) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I would prefer to just reduce it's size.--] 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


*The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as ''political legacy''. As such, it is part of the aftermath. ''If'' we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in ''good quality'' sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to ]. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. ] (]) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
.
*:the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. ] (]) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what ] means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. ] (]) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. ] (]) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::from, ]:
*:::<blockquote>
*:::A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
*:::...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.</blockquote>
*:::--] (]) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or ''point''. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. ] (]) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? {{small|{{strike|(My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.)}}}} ] (]) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. ] (]) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. ] (]) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. ] (]) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. ] (]) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


===proposed text===
== Bibliography ==
here is the proposed text:
I've added a bibliography botty section. Ricks' 'Fiasco' and Gordon's 'Cobra II' look like the most up-to-date and comprehensive books on the conflict so far, but feel free to add. ] 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


<blockquote>
== Let's Make the Opening Paragraph Change ==


;Political impact
I've read a great deal of support for changing the opening paragraph to reflect a more neutral tone. It's time we make the change. I'm willing to make the edit myself in the next fews days if I sense I have the support of the contributors in the discussion. --] 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


<s>The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. </s> at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the ] passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |title=Situation in Iraq |publisher=Europarl.europa.eu |access-date=2018-08-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070213035323/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=030130&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LASTCHAP=10&SDOCTA=5&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1&textMode=on |archive-date=2007-02-13 |url-status=live }}</ref>
:: Well, I'm not a contributor to this article. So I might be out of line for replying here. But I feel it is needed, regardless.


Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.
The suspect lines are perhaps:


;United States
"The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and supporters in the Republican and Democratic parties, was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, he claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Saddam Hussein became imminent."


By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.” <ref> ,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian. </ref>
These might hint at an anti-war bias, but they are also facts that are reliably sourced. The primary rationale for the war in March 2003 was unarguably the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Terrorism, liberation, and other reasons were mentioned but the focus of the President's speeches were on the possibility of Iraq gaining nuclear technology and on the possibility they would give these weapons to terrorist groups.


During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. <ref> , By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News. </ref> <ref> By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico. </ref> When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,” <ref> , BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine. </ref> <ref> , By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo. </ref>


The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, ], labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous. <ref> , Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024. </ref>
"After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda connection. Yet others pointed to human rights abuse in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the need to establish democracy in Iraq as reason for the war. They have also claimed that the economic importance of Iraq's oil supply limited non-military options. Many critics of the war have alleged that this was a primary reason for the invasion."


;United Kingdom
This is where I start seeing an obvious bias in the choice of words the article uses. But again, these are facts. No evidence was found that Iraq was actively developing a weapons of mass destruction program. This is all a matter of government record in which the conclusion has been that Iraq ceased such programs in the years following Gulf I. The line fart about oil not being sourced is particularly troubling to me, and I feel it should be removed unless it can be sourced or quoted. All of this is relevant, but this is more about the political implications of the war (for which there are numerous articles) than the history of the war itself.
In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.


One article in 2023 noted:
"The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq. The invasion soon led to the defeat and flight of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq. The unrest led to asymmetric warfare with the Iraqi insurgency, civil war between Sunni and Shia Iraqis and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. As a result of this failure to restore order, a growing number of coalition nations have withdrawn troops from Iraq. The causes and consequences of the war remain extremely controversial."


<blockquote> By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.
Failure to restore order is the only anti-war language I can see here. T
<p>

Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war. <ref> . Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023. </ref> </blockquote>
he war is controversial. That is a fact that is undeniable. Order was not restored. This is also an undisputable fact.

Assymetric warfare broke out. The Pentagon itself has stated this.

The US coalition occupies Iraq and tries to establish a democratic government. This is fact.

The force has been and remains to be primarily American and British.

That being said, my vote is that it is completely rehauled. Not because of bias, but because it is too long-winded and repetitive like my post here. I think about 2/3 to 1/2 of what currently exists could be there.

:::What do you mean specifically about 'neutral tone'? Which parts of the paragraph are non-neutral? ] 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to nitpick a little bit here. Consider the following statements:

<blockquote>
''After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons.''
</blockquote> </blockquote>
{{talkrefs}}
I'm not disagreeing with this, but you need a reference. Without a reference it is a worthless statement.

<blockquote>
''The U.S.-led coalition occupied Iraq and attempted to establish a new democratic government; however it failed to restore order in Iraq.''
</blockquote>
Considering the operation to restore order is ongoing, I think my friends who are deployed there would be quite surprised to learn that they've already failed. This is a broad and dangerous statement, and the author has provided absolutely no external support for it.

<blockquote>
''The war began in March 2003, when a largely British and American force supported by small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland attacked Iraq.''
</blockquote>
No one attacked Iraq. The allied forces invaded the land and fought (and are still fighting, fyi) Iraqi military and paramilitary organizations. Iraqi civilians have never been harmed without first showing intent to harm others, except in a few tragic accidents and but for a handful of immature young troops who take potshots at passing Iraqis because they want action. I know this is a bit too nitpicky, but honestly that language (attacked Iraq) seems very immature. Its like something a ten year old would say. Lets use adult language to describe adult situations.

I'm not suggesting that the introduction needs to be entirely overhauled, but if you are going to make dramatic and controversial statements you must word them thoughtfully and you absolutely must include references. ] 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

: Your allegation that only immature people use the word "attack" is, um, entertaining. Perhaps you could take your crusade against the word "attack" to the World War II articles; it is used quite heavily there. Then you could proceed to many other articles on wars and battles. ]

Hehe. I'll concede that one to you. I debated whether or not to include that in the first place. Perhaps I didn't debate long enough? A momentary lapse in judgement. I know we aren't supposed to remove talk page content, but what is the policy on striking? ;) Still, I stand by the difference of what I wrote. Cheers. ] 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


<blockquote>
''To support the war, other U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No such link ever existed.''
</blockquote>
There are a few problems with this statement. First, there is no source. A statement this broad would need maybe at least two. Second, it hasn't been proven true. How can anyone ever say for sure that there was no link between them? And some people think that there was a link...

Read both pages here. The author boldly claims a major link between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

This author is on the opposite side of the argument; he or she admits a link but says that it was minor. However, it's still a link, which would make the quoted statement untrue.

This quote is based on the writer's point-of-view and is not a neutral Misplaced Pages-worthy statement. Possibly it could be replaced as, "It is disputed whether such a link actually existed." Then, cite sources from both sides of the argument. ] 00:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== Suddenly calling all opposing forces "al-Qaida" ==

Does a summary of it belong in the article? ] 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

== Topically Related Imagery ==

The so-called topically-related imagery on this page is pathetic. It does not feature the war's victims in ''one single photograph'', yet there are at least 5 tame, unrevealing photos of American forces.] 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:I agree about that gallery of images at the end.--] 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:Problems have been corrected. --] 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

== Propose Removal of "Topically Related Imagery" ==

The Topically Related Imagery section at the end of the article serves informative purpose. It merely takes up space. I have not encountered such a section in any other article and since we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile, it is really of no use to anyone. ] 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:"''we don't seem to have permission to show any images of Iraq that aren't sterile''" - i disagree. Any photos/diagrams etc that aid understanding of the issue should be allowed to be on wikipedia, under a suitable subtitle or sub article.] 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
::I mean there don't seem to be any good images that have been licenced by the copyright holder.] 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:::There are image galleries in wikipedia articles. I have seen them. The question is how many images should there be in the image gallery here. We can't fit anymore images in the right and left side columns. I tried a few days ago. I had to alternate sides in order for there not to be blank white spaces in the 2 browsers I checked (latest Firefox and latest MS Internet Explorer v7.x). I assume all the images are allowed in this wikipedia article, or someone would soon delete them. --] 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If there are, they are not common to every article, and there is no reason why we should have them in this one, particularly when the images are so unsatisfactory, and the article is already so long and likely to expand. Don't bother adding any images if they're anything like the ones we have at present. And I'm sure these particular images are allowed, I only said that no ''good images'' were licenced.] 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that this rag-bag of images serves no particularly useful purpose in the article. ] 10:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I substituted a couple photos. Feel free to substitute more. I found a collection of images here:
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Iraq_War --] 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::Surely the proper place for an 'image dump' of Iraq war related images is http://commons.wikimedia.org/Iraq_War. Otherwise we should integrate appropriate images with appropriate text in the body of the article. Makes sense? ] 10:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Galleries are common, and are not image dumps. I think by continued substitution of better images, this gallery will be fine. 12 4-kilobyte gallery images take up only 48 kilobytes. Removing one of the larger-kilobyte, inline images from the text can save 30 kilobytes. --] 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:Can you cite other articles with similar image galleries? I still don't see the point of including images just because they exist, without immediate relation to the content. I know it's a great thing when it is established that the wikipedia actually has the rights to use an image, but that is no reason to go overboard with the sheer thrill of it...] 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::"sheer thrill of it". Please ease up on the hyperbole. It is uncivil, and does not assume good faith. Offhand, here is a page with a photo gallery in it: ]. Photos are just another form of sourced info useful to encyclopedias. Let us move on, please. --] 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

:::The picture gallery you cite in the Mexican instance is explicitly and thematically related to content in the text about a political rally. It is not a rag-bag of vaguely related images. As for incivility and bad faith, I have not directed any personal comments at any editor here, I am merely discussing the issue and I assume the good faith of anyone who has added pictures to the gallery or who created the gallery itself, even if I disagree with it on the grounds I have mentioned before. ] 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

== Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) ==

In the latest Firefox browser, and in the Microsoft Internet Explorer v7.x browser, it says

"Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation) - Misplaced Pages, the 💕"

at the top of the browser when I am viewing this talk page. Does anybody know why? And how do we fix it?

Here is some linkbar code followed by the linkbars:

<nowiki>{{article|Talk:Iraq War}}</nowiki>

'''{{article|Talk:Iraq War}}'''

<nowiki>{{article|Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)}}</nowiki>

'''{{article|Talk:al-Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation)}}'''

Maybe the history and log links can help figure this out. --] 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Hezbollah? ==

Is Hezbollah a player in the Iraq war? I note that an editor recently inserted it into the multiconflict insurgency side. There is the political movement ] which, if that article is to be believed, is not affiliated with ]. Anyway, since the article doesn't treat either of these groups, I am reverting the edit until it can be suitably referenced and clarified. ] 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
:#
:#
:#] report . ] 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::Ok. I'm still not convinced that Hezbollah should be identified as one of the combatants, although certainly they are deserving of some mention in the text. So far, there is evidence that the group assisted in training and arming Shiite resistance forces as a proxy for Iran. I don't think this is quite enough to justify identifying Hezbollah as a combatant: (1) Iran is already listed; (2) until evidence surfaces that Hezbollah actually has soldiers on the ground, it seems to attach undue significance to the role Hezbollah is playing in the war; (3) this is all rather recently revealed in the media, and still feels sort of speculative. That said, it probably ''is'' justified bringing this recent news up in the article somewhere. ] 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

==Disability Claims ==

Shouldn't these be mentioned somewhere? According to Veterans Affairs documents there have been 192,000 claims for disability by returned veterans. 110,000 were accepted, 21,000 rejected, 17,000 ruled as unrelated to war service and 44,000 still pending as of January 2007. That's a discrepancy of almost 140,000 in the number of injured compared to the info box. ] 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the source on that? Also, something specifically related to casualties might be better suited for a mention on this page with an in-depth reference on the ] page. <font color="green">]</font> 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We need an offical sorce to back up the, infact true, claims. I heard it was about 115,000 recently.<s>I'll look up a source for you</s>.--] 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some intresting links on U.S. war dead, wounded and disabled-

]
]
]
]
]
--] 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

== Protests against war in Iraq ==
An editor has just changed some wording in the article from 'protests against war in Iraq' to 'protests against the war in Iraq'. I think that the latter wording is incorrect because the protests started before the war began. What do people here think? ] 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:People were protesting ''the'' war in Iraq, i.e. the invasion by U.S. forces, which is - as far as I know - referred to as ''the'' war. If they wanted to protest war in Iraq they would've been rallying against the Kurdish conflict, the invasion of Kuwait leading to the First Gulf War (at that time), and whatever else there's going on there. Generally people don't care enough to actively protest a war that doesn't involve their nation somehow, although globalism is changing this. Nonetheless, the U.S. being a superpower, its citizens don't really ''have to'' care about other less important nations warring. But I'm starting to rant here, so I'll stop, and also, I don't see how 'the war' implies present times more than simply 'war'. ] 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, we were protesting about war in Iraq. I had been protesting against the oppression of the Kurds, I was present at anti-war demos for the first time around calling for the Iraqis to get out of Kuwait and the UK to stay out of the war either way, and the majority of anti-war protesters appear to have protested against war in, on, and around Iraq. I would, however, argue that better wording would be "protests against the invasion of Iraq by the coalition". ~AnarchoPaddy --] 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed. ] 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I say, 'Pro-Iraq' or 'pro-Saddam' protests.--] 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Crunch!--] 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

== Just a Typo ==
In the section "Calls for withdrawal from Iraq," there's a typo. "hile" for "while". ] 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For spelling mistakes just change it without discussion and put minor edit its no big deal no one will challenge u(] 23:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

== Strong majorities ==
In the section International opinion of the War on Terrorism It is said that "In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia."
What are these majorities? Government Majorities? News polls? Credible sources? Or taken after bias reporting? Please indicate the nature of the "majoraties".

As far as I can tell, polls and have elections have indicated that- Turkey is concerend about El-Queada; France, Germany and Russia suport Iraq; Japan and India want a diplomaic resalution to the despute; the U.S.A. wants to give up and leave, while the U.K., Australia, Poland and Denmark want to stay in Iraq to compeat the job! --] 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality proves you wrong. ] 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== WW1 ==
According to my 'original research' (i.e. ability to count) the Iraq War has lasted longer than the ], in which, incidently, Iraq was involved. In general terms it might be worth keeping tabs on duration of war, compared to other conflicts. ] 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting research Colin4C, I wasn't aware of the connections between the length of the Iraq War and WWI. Before you add this it might run into some problems with a straight comparison of time. Since Bush et al stated that major combat ops were over 4 years ago in May 2003, some editors may look at that as the end of the "war" and the beginning of the "occupation" phase. So your edit comparing these two very different wars might run into some trouble. On the other hand, having a section that compares the duration of the Iraq war with other notable conflicts might be worthwhile and useful. Just my two cents. <font color="green">]</font> 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:Just to say that e.g. the ] in 2004 was bloodier than the initial invasion and that things seem to ratcheting up in a major way lately. Iraq is certainly a ] if not necessarily a conventional one. ] 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

::It might also be worth while to include a comparison of insuries and deaths between the different wars. Perhaps these comparisons should be a separate article though.--] 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think this isnt important and more pull out of iraq kinda thing. Comparing the two is like comparing the AK47 and the m16 its pointless. WW1 and iraq war are completly differnt wars as one is a convetional war and one is a guerilla war. obivously as geurilla tactics are usaly small local ambushes itss going to take longer to take. i have heard from experts(cant rember the source) that to effectivly crush a geurilla resistance it will at least take 10 years while a more convetional war can be more eaisly crushed as u have to take in account
1. public soport
2. military capibilty
3. being blockaded
so therds my point if u wanna tell me sometin about my thery tell me on my talk page as i probaly will forget i posted this(] 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

== War Status ==

Its interesting how this event is so commonly reffered to as a "war", even though the mission is to target specific groups of people within the country, not the country itself, meaning there is no hostility directly between countries.

And thus an official ] by any country hasn't happened, so how can this article be named with the simple "Iraq War" tittle, not "Iraq-US insurgency", or something to that affect.I imagine atleast other names must have been proposed in the past, and the only reason for the current tittle must simply be the common,but inaccurate way to refer to the situation by the media and public. ] 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:Because "war" is not limited to declared conflict between nations.
::'''War''' (''noun'') - a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country;
:::a sustained campaign against something undesirable
:::''Concise Oxford English Dictionary''
:-- ] 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:Rodrique, also what other titles would you give the ] or the ]? Misplaced Pages is just going by the common usage here, nothing wrong with that. Reference materials bow to popular usage all the time. <font color="green">]</font> 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an international armed conflic, which was a war, untill Saddam fell, and a counter terrorisum/insergancy mission afterwards.--] 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:So are you saying the WW2 article should be changed to "The European conflict was an international armed conflict, which was a war, until France fell, and a counter terrorism/insurgency mission afterwards". Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting you down, but pointing out that usage is more important than what some politicians may call it. ] 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

::Let's not ]. -- ] 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whayne your wrong for comparing ww2 toa conflict as it was a war on all the axis nations in Europe after france fell the U.K. still had a decleration of war and when the U.S. joined Germany declared war on the U.S so making it still war, but anyway i personalyy think that the thing about the Vietnam and Korea should be called wars as thats the common name but techincaly they are conflicts ans should be called that(] 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I agree that it should be called a war. First, this is the most common and popular usage. When you turn on your TV, you see news about the Iraq War, never the "Mission in Iraq". I think that if the name of the article is changed, many users will not be able to find what they think is the article they want to read. Second, a conflict like the one in Iraq does meet the definition of a war, "a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country" like ] pointed out. The coalition forces use tanks, armored transports, gunships and helicopters. They are constantly under attack by heavily armed enemies with AKs, RPGs, mortars, explosives and other weapons. It may be a "postmodern war", but it is still a war. ] 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for the moment, we're not in a real war. We're not fighting Iraq itself, but terrorist insurgents that operate in Iraq. A real "War" would be America trying to destroy that very expensive democracy we set up. The War ended when Iraq surrendered and Saddam went into hiding. ] 10.35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:This is reflected in the sub-articles, i.e. invasion/occupation, but this the all-encompassing is named Iraq War because that's the popular usage which we must follow per ]. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think ] over the war's status.--] 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

== The 4 pictures in the template for Iraq war ==

Does anything think it is a bit of "systematic bias" to have only photos of US soldiers? Can we have multinational forces and Iraqi civilians and terrorist (all of which who are playing important roles in this war) too? What do other people think?--] 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is the reason I have always opposed having a split image - it falsely conveys the idea that we are trying to capture the entire war,, or all aspects of the war, in one image. This would be impossible, even if we had a million image split. Instead of putting 4 pictures there, which is unattractive anyways, the best thing to do is simply pick one decent quality picture and use it. It wont represent everything, any more than this 4 way split does, but it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and wont give false impressions. ~'''] (])''' 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:I like the 4-way image, but I see your point that it could appear to be a "systematic bias" when at the top. So let us move the 4-way image down farther in the article. --] 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the 4-way photo down in the article. The article has some insurgent photos to balance it. The 4-way photo has one photo with Iraqi soldiers in it. Need some photos in the article of soldiers from other nations in the multinational force. --] 11:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:The point is, we dont have to capture everything in an image, and we shouldnt pretend we have to by using a split image. We can use one image, we dont need to use a map, and further, we shouldnt use a map. Maps are used when there are no other images available. I have restored the image used before the split image was introduced. ~'''] (])''' 14:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Rangley. There's no way a map of Iraq illustrates the Iraq War better than the split image. I think it's pretty good in my opinion, though. Maybe get a shot of an insurgent in there. We should come to a reasonable consensus before just throwing away good photos. -- ] 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). OK. I was trying to put a neutral map image at the top to avoid systematic bias. I moved that map back down in the article. I also moved Rangeley's image down in the article since it has the same problem of systematic bias as the 4-way image. I moved the car bombing image to the top. It has both Coalition and insurgent elements to it. So it is a balance without systematic bias. And it certainly represents a key factor in this war. I don't want to lose any good images, and all of these are good. I myself especially appreciate having a map on the page. --] 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:Again, the point is, we do not have to capture everything in an image. It is not a "systemic bias" to have an image that has just American soldiers, just Iraqi soldiers, just Insurgents, just Saddam Hussein. If someone rejected images not because they were otherwise bad, but because they portrayed a side they did not want portraying, that would be violating NPOV, and that is the systemic bias that sometimes exists. If we purposely only choose images for this article showing Americans, thats one thing. But we arent, I beleive we have a variety of images within the article itself. But thats whats needed - variety in the article.
:Thats why we should drop the guise of trying to find an all encompassing image - none exists. We should just opt for a good one, typically one that is a good lead in for the article. The one from 2005 which you moved up doesnt strike me as a better image than the previous one which you have moved down. ~'''] (])''' 19:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::I disagree. So that is 2 out of 3 wanting a more balanced image on the top. Your preferred image may be more dynamic and exciting, but this is a war we are talking about, and avoiding systemic bias in the first photo people see is far more important than trying to grab people's attention with a less-balanced photo at the top. --] 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
:::For the third time, my point is that you have misdefined systemic bias, and we do not have to have only all encompassing images. It is a systemic bias to purposely reject images representing a side when images are available, but noone is suggesting this. The article should have a variety of images - but each image doesnt have to have everything in it. No image has everything in it, and no image can possibly represent all there is in a war. ~'''] (])''' 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::::We disagree. Sorry. 2 out of 3 people in this conversation thought your image at the top showed a systemic bias. A 4th person would have been happy with the split image if it had an insurgent in one of the 4 images in the collage. The variety of images that follow farther down in the article have a better balance, but even there they show mostly Americans. Others have discussed similar problems concerning the gallery of images. Wars consist of multiple sides, and the photos should not favor any side. --] 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
::Wait - where did I say that? ~'''] (])''' 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:I was asked to comment here, so, without further ado:
:Using a collage of images to "represent" a war is somewhat problematic for one this recent. For WWII, for example, the approach works fairly well because there are a decent number of iconic photographs of the war; here, on the other hand, most of the images are unlikely to be instantly recognizable. (The systemic bias issue is a valid one, but caused more by a lack of freely licensed photographs than anything else. If the insurgency were releasing a pile of PD images, as the US government does, it'd be a lot easier to create a "balanced" grouping of images.)
:The idea of using a map is not a bad one, but a simple geographic map of Iraq is not really helpful to the reader. What would be the better approach, I think, would be a map ''of the war''; see, for example, ]. Essentially, you'd need to start off with a (fairly large) map of Iraq and then mark it up with the locations of battles and military movements, important zones of control, etc.
:Obviously, this will require more work than just uploading a simple map; but I think the end result would be both more useful and more visually appealing. ] 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, that war map example is a good idea. --] 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the 4-way collage image. ] - I replaced the 4-way collage image with one of the images making it up. ] - Another image from that collage is already in the article. ] - Removing the collage image saves over 83 kilobytes (at the 300-pixel-wide size at which the image was in the article). This frees up kilobytes for use in downloading the many 3 to 5 kilobyte images in the gallery at the end of the article. --] 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created and posted the war map with the ''major'' operations and attacks. There's no way I could include everything, but I'm fairly satisfied with what I made. What do you all think of it? -- ] 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:For the image at the top of the article it is a definite improvement. I put below a 300-pixel-wide version of your Iraq War map, ]. It is the same size as at the top of the article infobox. Keep clicking the image to enlarge it more and more. I suggest making the text a little larger in the title box on the image so that it is readable even in the 300-pixel-wide version of the image. So people know what the map is about before clicking it. --] 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

]
::It looks very nice. Good work. ~'''] (])''' 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, it looks very useful. And will be even nicer IMHO when the labels on the map denoting military operations etc are correlated with mentions of them in the text of the article. ] 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The operations and attacks image is very dry, and also practically illegible unless clicked on. I strongly believe one excellent photo showing people directly involved in the war should be used as the headline photograph. There are many possible iconic photographs that could immediately give the average user a sense of the war, whether they recognize it or not. It need not be all encompassing.] 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you think the picture is "dry", but it illustrates exactly what it is supposed to: the major operations in Iraq since 2003. Whether or not it should be up at the top is what the debate is all about. Secondly, I haven't seen any operations and battle maps encompassing an entire campaign that are particularly legible. In fact, let me give you some examples of images that are on featured or high-quality articles:
<gallery>
Image:Hannibal's route of invasion, 3rd century BC.gif|]
Image:Second Punic War Battles.gif|]
Image:Eastern Front 1942-05 to 1942-11.png|]
Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png|]
Image:Western front 1914.jpg|]
Image:Western front 1915-16.jpg|]
Image:Rzeczpospolita Dymitriads.png|]
</gallery>
None of the above pictures are legible at 300 px. Furthermore, having created this image, enlarging everything on the map to make it absolutely legible on the front page, would crowd out the map with icons and text. The suggestion of having a campaign map like this was brought up and the idea was lauded by several users. This was the reason I created it. If you feel there is a better picture available, by all means, post it or suggest it. -- ] 21:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
:I think then that your map image should be moved to an appropriate location in the article, and either a past image reinstated or a new one selected. As someone said above, map images are usually used when no good photos are available, and I see that the images you posted are all from battles that took place during WWII or even earlier, putting most of the events in a time period during which photography was more difficult and thus less common. Although your map image is indeed un-biased, the first image visible on the page should be as compelling as possible, while also remaining appropriate and not overly-biased. The rest of the article is excellent, and I would like people to be compelled to read through it when they stumble upon it and see the top of the page. There just isn't anything at all compeling about a cartoon map of Iraq that shows a few major battles that have taken place. I didn't find the old 4-pictures image to be biased, and I didn't get the impression that it was meant to be all-encompassing. I would probably suggest simply reinstating it, but maybe there is something else in the PD that would work also, if there are still objections to the quad image. Also, perhapse it could be considered biased to have a top image that is not attention-grabbing and may result in fewer people reading through this article, although I don't think that that is your intention. It could be said that there is a risk of going too far and sensationalizing the events of the war if there is too much emphasis placed on making the article interesting and exciting to the reader. However, I really don't think placing one or a few interesting and emotional real photos from the war at the top of the page is going too far. This war is a very important issue that everyone should be informed about, so lets make sure that we do as much as we can to get people to read about it.] 03:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::You make some good points. I think people wanted a neutral image that did not favor any side in the conflict. If an image is wanted that would draw the reader more into the article, I would prefer an image showing some of the harrowing Iraqi casualties of the war. I can't find any good ones on wikipedia. I mean photos such as the ones I found recently here:
::http://www.lowculture.com/archives/2005/12/
::I found that page while browsing around looking for some more images for
::]

::Here are some categories with photos:
::]
::http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Iraq_War
::http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:PD_US_Army

::Here is a non-bloody photo, that is harrowing nevertheless:
]

::]

::Misplaced Pages is not censored. See ]. So we can put any image we want at the top. I vote for showing the reality of war with some bloody photos of casualties from all sides. --] 09:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Thats good, I agree with what you said. I would like the top photo to show Iraqi people in some manner, since the war effects them the most out of any group. The first photo doesn't need to be extremely harrowing or bloody, but it should tap into people's feelings about the war and compel them to read further. I would hope that nobody would consider a photo of that nature biased, as it would merely show a record of an event that took place as a result of the war. A photograph of an operation or a battle or attack is simply a document of something that happened, analagous to the Iraq map showing major combat events. But a photograph shows much more vividly the human aspect of such events in this war.] 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

::::How about this one: ]. I have been showing the images in this section at the 300-pixel-wide size of the infobox in the article.

], Iraq, on March 20, 2007.]]--] 02:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think that would be a very appropriate image. It features female soldiers in Iraq, which in my understanding is not a very common site in published war photographs. It also features Iraqi civilians. I think it is a well-balanced photo, in regards to viewpoints or emotions regarding the war. Its a sad photograph, but it also has a certain glimmer of hopefulness to it. The people in it appear worn out, but also determined. I think it would be hard to argue against that photograph.] 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I've redone the war map to consolidate information per ] request. -- ] 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on the picture?] 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the photo to the one of the female soldier and Iraqi child. The battle map it replaced still needs to be repositioned. If there is any opposition to this change or choice of photo, please state your concerns. Thanks.] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:The photo looks good at the top of the infobox. I am going to let others place the map. They seem to be having discussions on other talk pages about the various maps, combining them, etc.. --] 14:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-I hate the be the asshole here but I just dont like the picture. The photo compilations that are usually used for War articles are widely used for a reason, most wars are very complex. I dont doubt the authenticity or the intentions of the soldiers in this photograph but it should not be used as the centerpiece picture for the entire article... this is the kind of picture that the Department of Defense would release and therefore isnt neutral. Someone should make a photo compilations and include this picture in it. - Blake

:If you can find a better photo, more power to you. I looked, and there are very few good photos of the Iraq War on wikipedia or the commons. I mean photos that show some of the reality of the casualties of the war. Not just the typical gungho photos of tanks, attack helicopters, and guys on patrol. Please encourage people to upload more casualty photos.

:Here is the reality. There is a disturbing May 2007 New York Times slideshow of American casualties after an IED bombing. It is linked from the story here:

:http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/07/1719/ - story
:Slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/05/22/world/20070523_SEARCH_FEATURE.html

:There is another casualty photo here:
:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0412-07.htm

:Due to the lack of detail visible on a 300-pixel-wide compilation photo at the top of an infobox such compilation photos are not compelling enough to be a lead photo for a wikipedia article about an ongoing war.

:I agree with you about photos found on U.S.-military-associated websites. Most are cheesy. See
:http://www.army.mil/mediaplayer/armyimages/
:http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter --] 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#808080}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 240px; background: #FFF88B;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #FFFFFF; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | ]
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | {{{4|Please discuss the lead picture ''']'''.}}}
|}</div>
<br style="clear:both;"/>
===One of several old ] header photos===
{{off topic}}
{{calm talk}}--] 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
:Here is the compilation photo at 300 pixels wide that was used for awhile at the top of the infobox:
:]

]

:Another problem with it is that it uses 84 kilobytes even at this width. Various images have been used at the top of the infobox over time. We keep looking for better, less-cheesy ones to use there. --] 12:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Use a dramticly smaller version or reduce the resalution to save on ].--] 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:We are trying to draw people into the article. It is not a very compelling photo collage even at the current 300-pixel-wide setting used for the ] header photo. A smaller version will make it even less interesting. --] 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The best hedder image could be this, it's so apropriate---] 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the headder picture is boring, but it's not naff. I think this reprisents the true meaning of the war for me. ]’s statue in ] in ].]]--] 03:30, 25 July 2007 (U
The picture is too pro-triumphalism, is staged as a P.R. Stunt and peace of anti-Iraqi propaganda.TC)--] 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool it, nurds!--] 11:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:Wow. You warn us about etiquette and then call us "nurds". -- ] 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking if you think a picture of an American soldier carrieing and Iraqi child is appropriate! This doesn not show how the war is at all. You are giving people the impression the Americans are doing good and that's not neutral (and not true). ] 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely misleading to have that picture of the Soldier carrying the child at the top of this article. I can't believe anyone thinks that is NPOV. It makes it look like the Americans are engaged in some kind of humanitarian rescue mission. Whatever anyone's feelings on the war, a wikipedia article should not show such bias. <small>&mdash;The preceding comment is by ] (] • ]) {{{Time|14:59, 31 July 2007}}}: '']''</small><!-- {{unsigned3}} -->

I think this picture is so true to life in Iraq-

]--] 02:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the dead Iraqie mentioned by ]!--] 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'boreing' battel-map is best.--] 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.----] 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Try this one, it's very topical--] 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#808080}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 240px; background: #FFF88B;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #FFFFFF; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | ]
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | {{{4|Please discuss the lead picture ''']'''.}}}
|}</div>
<br style="clear:both;"/>
Stop posting below this line. -- ] 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

== POV photo ==

I think the current leading pic is US-POV and could imply that americans are there to help Iraqi civilians. It could better fit into a humanitarian mission, not in a conflict infobox. --] (]) 10:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:Didn't we already have this discussion? Please read the ]. I don't think we're ''ever'' going to agree on one picture. -- ] 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:I actually agree with TheFEARgod, and I picked the photo. I was looking for a wikipedia photo that showed some of the casualties of the war, but could not find any graphic ones on wikipedia. This is the best I could find. I hope somebody uploads some more realistic photos of Iraqi casualties. See the previous discussion mentioned by VegitaU. We may never agree on a photo, but we can keep trying to put better ones on the page. --] 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

:: How would a graphic photo of a disemboweled civilian be more neutral than the current one? The current photo is as good as it can be, IMO. It shows that civilians are being injured due to the instability caused by the invasion (+1 for the left), while showing the humanity of the invading soldiers (+1 for the right). Plus 1 for both sides equals a net gain of zero for both sides. That is neutral by definition. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

:Rather than try and find the perfect picture that says in a thousand words that "This is the Iraq War" why don't we use the Iraq Operations Map in the Infobox and use the other pictures as appropriate throughout the article. Since this article is about the Iraq war and not about the casualties or humanitarian mission this should aleviate the picture discussion.--] 21:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

::This article is about all aspects of the Iraq War: casualties, mission, maps, etc... No photo would be perfect. --] 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::: The only leading pic I can think of that encompasses all aspects of the conflict would be the operations map, as it depicts the entire area in which all aspects of the conflict take place. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My point was that no image can encompass all aspects of the conflict. So we have to choose what aspects to cover. I agree with previous comments that we should use a compelling image in order to interest more readers into delving into the article. Several other comments have been made that we shouldn't use obviously biased photos that seem to be glorifying one side or the other. Or their weapons. So I prefer photos of the reality on the ground. Such as the current header photo for the ]:

]

I think the above photo is better than the typical tanks or helicopters photos. As at ]. Its current header photo of helicopters:

] --] 21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:Exactly, no picture will perfectly capture all aspects of the war (leave it to the article to do that), and we should instead opt for a picture that is compelling and, if possible, creates interest. I agree with you that generic photos of helicopters are not the best (or photos of destroyed buildings, as is a trend lately), simply because they could be in any war or battle. Whatever image is gone with should ideally have some identifying qualities. My original choice was one which ] - the most numerous combatant, and my second ] - two of the most attacked areas in the war. The current image is of good quality though, and does catch attention. It depicts the aftermath of what appears to be a car bomb attack on civilians, displaying the nature of the victims, the attackers, and the inability to restore order on the part of the coalition. These are identifying aspects of this war that do not necessarilly define others. ~'''] (])''' 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

]

I don't like the map because it represents just a few days of a five year event in such a sterile way. How about Baghdad burning at right? &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:It's graphic and intrseting.--] 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:If we could get a more ] of Baghdad burning, and a few bodies lying around, then that would show more of the reality of the war. Either during the invasion, or around the time of the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and the looting anarchy. --] 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Are we being either- ]istic, ], pro-], ], pro-], pro-], ']istic' or ]? I ] for either the ] ] and the ] ], either would do!--] 11:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Vote? ]. We come to ''consensus'' here by logical arguments, not by votes. -- ] 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...and dose power lie with a ruling ], not the ] and ]?--] 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:To find out, read ]. -- ] 11:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
<div style="float: left; border:solid {{{1|#808080}}} 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 240px; background: #FFF88B;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #FFFFFF; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | ]
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | {{{4|Please discuss the lead picture ''']'''.}}}
|}</div>
<br style="clear:both;"/>
Stop posting below this line. -- ] 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

==Image Consensus Discussion==

<div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #EFF8FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
<center>''The following discussion is a debate to reach '''consensus''' on what the leading infobox picture will be. All users all welcome to participate and all relevant arguments will be heard. Please do not ] for one picture on the sole basis of "]" or disregard a picture on the basis of "]". Offer your arguments based on close analysis and the criteria available. Please refrain posting pictures more than once. When submitting a picture for review, please post as <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Please don't make thumbnails as they will warp the text when further pictures are added.
</center>
-----
We have changed images so many times, and many people's arguments have shifted so many times, that this is extremely confusing and has a real sense of going nowhere fast. I have a few criteria which I will put out there for people to consider, as well as a few "non criteria," which we should not be using to disqualify images.

'''Criteria'''
*Good quality. The image should look good at 300px, which is the standard size for infobox pictures. Not only does this mean that the real picture should be 300px or more (to prevent pixelization,) but the original picture itself has to have been taken professionally. This criteria is fairly obvious, but should still be up here.
*Interesting/compelling. The image should also be interesting to look at. If its depicting a tank sitting by the roadside, this isn't that interesting unless the tank happens to be a new model of tank first introduced in that particular war, which played a pivotal part. In other words, a still life picture is not very interesting under most circumstances. It should have something going on, displaying action. War is defined by action and movement, and depicting this is key. Showing humans in the photo can also be compelling, and more interesting than one without humans.
*Uniquely relevant. The image should show something that is both relevant, and identifiable to the war. The Vietnam War example Timeshifter found above is a particularly good example, for all three of these qualities, but especially this criteria. It shows a napalm fire, in the jungle setting. Both of these things, when combined, almost instantly evoke the Vietnam war. Not every war has something so clear as that, but there are certainly things identifiable to the Iraq war.

'''Not Criteria'''
*All encompassing. A photo need not show all aspects of a war. The Vietnam War image is effective because it shows a few key elements of the war, in an interesting, good quality manner. It doesn't shove everything into the same photo, and doesn't try. It keeps the focus that it has.
*Depicts all sides. An image does not need to show all combatants. The days of both sides lining up in rows and shooting each other predated photography, and only rarely will both sides be in the same photograph. Such a photograph would obviously dangerous to take, and we should not wait for one to show up.

So with the criteria out of the way, here are a few ideas for what might be "uniquely relevant" to this particular war, and what we should avoid. Things that are uniquely relevant might be pictures of in the outside desert setting, pictures that show Iraqis (civilians, troops) convoys on roads, patrols, buildings of Iraqi architectural design. Things that are not uniquely relevant would be photos of death, photos of something inside with troops, simply photos of equipment not being used. There seems to be a trend lately to show destroyed buildings, but this is not unique to any single war and is in all. Troops in a room, or training at home, happen in every war. People die in every war. A photo need not show these things to be a good photo - and we should try and avoid them for that reason. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but there are things that make a good image, and things that make a bad image. So long as a photo meets to above criteria, I think it would be a solid choice.

Now finally, for a review of the last couple of images we have used.

]
*Good quality - Yes, I would say it meets that.
*Interesting/Compelling - Yes, it meets this as well. The wounded child is especially compelling, in addition to the Iraqi woman looking downwards in the background. This image is filled with emotions, and filled with humans interacting. It has a real feel of being a snapshot of something happening.
*Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the Iraqi woman in the background in addition to architecture and desert setting lend themselves to this aspect. The fact that the child was wounded by a car bomb is yet another bit of relevance. Certainly these things aren't as identifiable as napalm in a jungle, but are probably some of the best ones we could get for this war at this point.

]
*Good quality - This is questionable. Its a nice map at full size, but certainly wasn't made for 300px. You cant read things at that size very well.
*Interesting/Compelling - Not really. At full size its interesting, but at 300px it is almost like a filler.
*Uniquely Relevant - Perhaps. At full size I would say it is, but again, at 300px, could you definitively say it was of this war and not any other war in Iraq? I suppose the red triangle is identifiable, but that's not enough to carry the whole image.
:stupid, IMO. Some operations shown, some (more important) not. --] (]) 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::Sounds like a ], but tell me, what "important" operations are left out? -- ] 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
]
*Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
*Interesting/Compelling - It has a nice human element to it, especially the third soldier back who is looking right at the camera. You can get a good sense of their emotions from it. I think the wounded child image is more compelling, but this still fits the requirement in my view.
*Uniquely Relevant - Yes, it shows Iraqi soldiers with their "un-uniform" uniforms, a rather motley crew. Note that only some have camouflaged helmets. Its in a desert of course, which helps establish the setting.

]
*Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
*Interesting/Compelling - So-so. It lacks a human element, yet the photo carries a level of interest due to the nice setup. The smoke gives it an almost artistic quality, and the lack of negative space, and good placement of the Humvee and helicopter make it a good image in this sense. I don't know that this is enough to carry it though.
*Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the convoy/oil fire combination is effective, in the desert, at establishing the setting as Iraq.

So, from this, I would have to say that the top image is the best we have so far. This is all just my analysis of course, but I hope that trying to put forward a concrete criteria of what makes a good image can help move things along. If others can find better images, we can compare using the criteria, and hopefully find an image that is the most agreeable. ~'''] (])''' 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Amazing work, Rangeley! No matter what picture is chosen it is good that more photos are being found. I have been categorizing them here: ]. I hope people categorize more images. Just put <nowiki>]</nowiki> at the bottom of the image page. I hope people upload more images, too. I believe all images from the military or individual soldiers anywhere in Iraq are considered public domain. --] 07:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:I think it's a good idea to have solid criteria to follow. I applaud you.
:I have an image sent home by a relative which I may submit for consideration. I haven't uploaded it yet, but it shows a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter parked beneath the distict "twin swords" monument under which Republican Guard troops used to parade. It is a high-quality photograph and, although it does not show any people, it cannot be mistakenly associated with any other war. From this description, do you think it would be worthy of consideration if I were to submit it? ~ ]<small><sup>(]|])</sup></small> 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::If you can find it, it would certainly be worth a look. Even if it isnt used in the infobox, it sounds like something that would work in the article itself. ~'''] (])''' 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:It is a realy compelling and intresting photo to me.--] 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Here it is.
] or ]
:::~ ]<small><sup>(]|])</sup></small> 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
*Good quality - It looks as though it was taken either in overcast weather or in the evening (probably the first due to the fuzzy shadow), so the lighting is not optimal.
*Interesting/Compelling - Without humans, and without movement, it seems sort of set aside and out of the action.
*Uniquely Relevant - Yes, the hands of victory are obviously identifiable as Iraqi, and the architecture, but I dont think these make up for the two other points.
I think it might work as an addition to the ] article though. ~'''] (])''' 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
* This picture is an awsum display of America's overwelming military and political omnipitance in the ] after the war 'officaly ended'.--] 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

* It is visualy pleasing and a good sumarry of the events.--] 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
* The second picture is the better one.--] 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
*NOTE: I added the second photo I think is of more better quality --] (]) 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
]

* This is unique to this conflict.--] 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


]

* The Abraham's tank wreck is also apropriate and compelling, to. --] 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

:It horrific and just gloryfies death!--] 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

]

*'''''Beat this!!! The ]] ] holding a leash attached to a prisoner collapsed on the floor in the ]!!!'''''--] 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with it.--] 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::It is a low quality and of a immoral subject (torture).--] 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:More Abu Ghraib images are found here:
:] --] 07:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:This is a low quality picture. -- ] 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, so far we have: '''Child-in-arms''', '''War Map''', '''Iraqi Soldiers''', '''] and helicopter''', '''Hands of Victory''', '''Saddam at Trial''', '''Burned Tank''', and '''Iraqi on Leash'''. I also have to remark to stop making exclamatory remarks like '''''BEAT THIS!!!!111!!''''' This is not a competition and to the writers to make these, I would highly advise you read ] and ]. This adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to undermine the argument altogether. Such remarks will be disregarded in the future. Please make objective remarks on why the picture would serve best when placed up against the criteria at the top. Make an argument that will generate discussion. Thanks. -- ] 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Images section break 1 ===

]
*I have reviewed all the pictures on the commons and found this is the one I like most. For me, this illustrates the war in Iraq the best; just as soldiers in the jungle and a burning Vietnamese village illustrates the Vietnam War the best. This picture follows all the criteria set forth above. It is good quality, compelling and active, and relevant to the situation. -- ] 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a good image from ].
--] 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

*Good quality - Yes, it is good quality.
*Interesting/Compelling - Yes, it certainly has a human element. You can clearly see peoples expressions, and that they are looking in different directions, clearly being active. The front person is peering around a corner, which leads one to wonder what he sees.
*Uniquely Relevant - Yes, I have to agree with VegitaU that this is one the most identifiable scenes from the Iraq War. Its a several man patrol going around the streets of Iraq, searching for insurgents.
This is another image I like, along with the first picture (of the child.) The one of Saddam is not actually in the war, but seperate to the war, and the prisoner abuse is just a component as opposed to the war itself. They are both good pictures for their respective articles/sections though (trial and abuse). The destroyed tank is not compelling (active, human element) or uniquely relevent (destroyed tanks are fairly common.) ~'''] (])''' 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:I prefer the Child-in-arms picture as it shows war from the victims perspective, which is usually unrepresented, but still a very important and sad aspect of war.--] 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

*It would be intresting to have a headder picture of the 'oppersition' for once. This picture of the Iraqies on the eve of war dose this. ]'s picture of the troopers is a good shot to.--] 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Disregarded for bad-faith vandalism . -- ] 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::VegitaU. Please stop editing other people's comments. That is a serious breach of ]. You can be reported to ] for that. I removed the strikeout code. The diff you linked to was not vandalism. And current vandalism does not allow past non-vandalous comments to be struck out. ] lists very specific things that justify removing text. Such as completely offtopic comments, blatant over-the-top insults, etc.. Also, stop removing images. It makes the thread difficult to follow. The fact that the images may make the text wrap a little imperfectly is not a big deal on talk pages. --] 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Okay, first of all, I'd appreciate it if you came to my personal talk page to discuss this issue instead of here in this discussion page, but hey, whatever... From ]: ''common types of vandalism include the addition of&hellip;bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense.''' And that's exactly what I deleted, in my opinion: "] breath is on tryal today!]]" First of all, these unregistered users all mysteriously hailing from the same place with similar IP addresses have been fairly disruptive in this talk page.(, ) Sorry, if I seemed to be going a little rogue deleting comments and all; I apologize; yes, it was out of line, but don't come here and threaten me with WP:ANI. If you want to go there, feel free&hellip;this issue has proven to be really frustrating and I'm trying to find out who these disruptive users are. ] and I have already started ] reports to try and get a grasp on the situation. I've been trying to limit the nonsense that has kept appearing over the past week or so on here while trying to carry this discussion in an organized, sensible manner with the pictures presented clearly for everyone to discuss. I did not feel these unregistered editors were editing in good faith. Thanks for your concern. --] 14:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I can see why you get frustrated dealing with some of the unregistered users' comments. I do too at times. I commented here because I did not want others to also start editing others' comments. We also have to take into account ]. --] 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm choseing the ] under the ]. It has a unique historical role, captures a moment of global importance (the fall of ]) and has a pleasent visual simitry to it.--] 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It is aperent to me, that the Hands of victory picture was staged as a P.R. Stunt and is not of any real value to the site. --] 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can rotate the images. I really like many of the images people are finding. I keep categorizing more and more images to ]. Some of the images need to be categorized to subcategories there. Feel free to do so. --] 07:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All I'm sure of is that the image of the child and soldier is utterly unacceptable. Rangeley left out one very important criterion, the image needs at least to follow rudimentary neutrality guidelines, the impression conveyed by this image is atrociously pro-American. I also disagree that it is interesting or compelling, it strikes me as rather tame, particularly as the focus is on the soldier, the least interesting aspect of the photograph.] 14:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, the reason I left the issue of NPOV out of the criteria was no accident. I wanted to get discussion past the "when I look at this, I interpret it as showing...," and towards aspects which we could constructively discuss. I think that if there is an image which fails NPOV, it probably fails the other aspects as well. For instance, a staged photo would likely not be interesting or compelling, except in the rarest of instances (]). And as is the case here, you do not find this photo particularly compelling. In that case, I suppose we can just move on to another image. ~'''] (])''' 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A posible unique late commer- Baghdad burns after a ] campainge.
]

]

*Good quality - Definitely
*Interesting/Compelling - An explosion is always dramatic.
*Uniquely Relevant - The abbr. IED, I think, says a lot about the Iraq War --] (]) 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like this one too. A perfect example of the ever-present car bomb explosion... a regular event, it seems, in Iraq. -- ] 15:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:So do I, its very far from ideal, but seems to be the best we have.] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::An IED is certainly a uniquely relevent aspect, but the lack of a human element is a big negative. How do people think this compares to the above image of a patrol? ~'''] (])''' 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Both the car bomb image and the soldiers on patrol image are fine photographs, but I don't think they should be selected. The car bomb picture lacks any human element to it, as stated above. The soldier patrol image indeed contains people, but I would say that the soldiers are very much obscured by their gear and ]. The people end up looking like just ] ], and I would rather not present soldiers in that way.] 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::Sooo, any other comments about this? I would hate to see all the air escape from this effort. ~'''] (])''' 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
:::So it seems to me that we've narrowed the candidate pool through discussion to the following:
:::*'''Child'''
:::*'''HMMWV and Helicopter'''
:::*'''Hands of Victory''' (one of them)
:::*'''Army Patol'''
:::*'''Car Bomb'''
:::From these, what can we further say about them to reach an end agreement? Personally, I like the patrol picture, followed closely by the car bomb picture. -- ] 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Car bomb, Army patrol and either Hands of Victory are of perticular relivence to this artical--] 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:I prefer the ] and the ].--] 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
::From discussion, it seems like the patrol image has the most positive, with one negative that the soldiers are slightly obscured by their gear. The car bomb image is also up there, but its lack of humans is an even bigger negative. I would support putting the patrol image up to end this issue, as it appears to be the best we have at the moment. ~'''] (])''' 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:::The Patrole,Hands of Victory and HMMWV with hellicopter have the best picture clarity.--] 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Child portrays the conflict like a humaniterian rather than counter insrgency campaing, which gives it a false impression to the readers.--] 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I vote for the Hands of Victory (helicopter).--] 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Images section break 2 ===

:::::Pine oak, you obviously have a skewed view of this discussion. Please read ] and understand that this is a ''discussion'', not an election or popularity contest. We reach consensus here. Let me also say that I'm amused at how all the "new" unregistered users and others seem to creep out of nowhere with their misspellings, ], and poor editing to sway this discussion. Sock puppets, anyone? Oh wait, I shouldn't ]. -- ] 03:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::As concerns votes and consensus most editors with user names tend to pay attention more to the opinions of other registered users. The Iraq War article has long gotten edits and comments from unregistered users. Some have been vandals. That is why the article itself is semi-protected. There may or may not be sock puppets in this discussion. But please don't make blanket accusations against unregistered users you disagree with. --] 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Who am I disagreeing with? I made a statement about my amusement on the appearance of "new" unregistered users, not their comments. -- ] 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)It seems that you are attacking Pine Oak for the links he left in his previous comment. Seemed a little heavy-handed to me. Lighten up. It gives the impression also that you disagree with their image choices, too. Like the time you struck out a comment from someone choosing a particular image, and said it was irrelevant because they had made a so-called vandalous comment previously. And attacking people for their misspellings has long been a no-no on most forums (not just wikipedia talk pages). Instead, I suggest recommending the Firefox browser to people. It has a spellchecker built in. It works great and in real time. I use 2 browsers. Internet Explorer and Firefox. The IP addresses of many people changes over time. So it is not surprising that unregistered users are often found using new IP addresses. Many internet providers assign dynamic IP addresses. --] 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:Uh, no. I never said I disagreed with Pine oak. I said Misplaced Pages was not a democracy and that to reach a meaningful end, consensus through discussion was needed since he just said "I vote for !" And yeah, as I already explained above, 'my bad' in crossing out a comment after vandalism. Oh, look we just had '''''' vandalism from those pesky unregistered users&hellip;darn; don't want to seem too "heavy-handed" in my approach. -- ] 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::::So what? Just because some unregistered users are vandals does not mean they all are. Let us stop discussing this offtopic stuff here. We can use our talk pages. --] 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Uh, ''you'' we're the one who began posting here and not on my talk page. Hey, , someone just deleted comments from unregistered users&hellip;oh, wait, you only get on ''my'' case about it. -- ] 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::I also remove obvious vandalism from registered or unregistered users. But I don't keep a running log on talk pages, or attack unregistered users in general. Nor do I use their mistakes to attack their opinions. I commented here because you attacked their opinions here, based on their mistakes (some of it was just mistakes or not understanding the rules here, and not vandalism). I don't want others to do these kinds of attacks either. And I want to encourage sincere newbies to help out at wikipedia. So I comment here. You started this by attacking some of the unregistered users too harshly. --] 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It seems to me, then, you don't understand ], ], and what happened. I disregarded an unregistered user's comments based on his vandalism. Then, I suggested that Pine oak read WP:DEMOCRACY to understand why simply "voting" was not a constructive way of furthering the discussion. Nowhere did I make any personal attacks against these users based on their opinions. I really don't care what picture we use, in the end, so long as the discussion is worthwhile and productive. That's why I set up this box apart from the rest of the talk page discussions. Please show me the "mistakes" you mention. Adding to other people's edits and other sure doesn't seem like a good-faith mistake to me. And where is your constant vigilance "reverting vandalism"? You revert edits to ''your'' comments, not to anyone else's. And you revert ''my'' edits to the article. Did I vandalize the article? No, I don't think so. But I'm sure what you do isn't "too harsh", right? -- ] 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:Now you are saying I don't revert some vandalism? Well, I do, and I don't waste talk page space reporting on it. You want a medal? --] 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

::It doesnt really matter who started it here, it belongs on either of your talk pages as it doesnt deal with images. ~'''] (])''' 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::It deals with people's opinions of images. I am willing to take this to talk pages, though. --] 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

=== Images section break 3 ===

::So does anyone object if we put up the patrol image? ~'''] (])''' 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
:::You'll get no opposition from me. -- ] 00:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I object if it is intended to stay up a long time. I think we should rotate images. Some people do not want the reality of the war (death, gore, and casualties) to be shown. Especially of Iraqis. So they like these gungho, posed photos of U.S. soldiers on street corners, or helicopters under monuments, or a statue coming down. --] 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I think periodic rotation is a great idea. Just keep a copy of the diff here so when you are inevitably accused of edit warring by an overzealous but well-meaning administrator, you'll have a get-out-of-jail-free card. &larr;] 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::I disagree. What's the point of rotating images? It just seems like we can't come to any clear decision, so we're going to try and satisfy everyone. Unfortunately, once someone's "favorite" picture is rotated out, someone's going to come in and declare NPOV and start the argument all over again. We should decide in '''this''' discussion what picture to use, post it, and defend it from changes. The pictures in the ] and ] articles haven't changed in years. I see no point in rotating pictures like a slideshow. -- ] 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The Patrol and the Child have a more human element.--] 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Child' and 'Patrol' are the only ones with a human and topical
nature. rotation is not a good idea, it's unessasery.--] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::I completely oppose setting out to rotate images on a regular basis. This discussion tried to find the best we currently have, with the intention of using that image. I would not want to see images that we determined were sub-par be used, but thats what rotating would inevitably do as it uses not just the best we have but also the not so good. But its not like we will use this image forever, if that is your fear. I bet that eventually a better image will come along that can take its place. But when that one comes along, we would go through the same process we did here, judge it through criteria and compare. There would be no more edit wars or "I like this better" wars, it would have an orderly process. Im not ''completely'' happy with this image either, but I think it is good enough to accept as a way of ending the disorder we previously dealt with. ~'''] (])''' 16:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:::In that case I am opposed to this photo. Because it adds little to the article. It is just a typical guys-on-patrol photo that can be found for almost any conflict zone nowadays. And it is a photo of Americans. So it doesn't show anything of the Iraqi side of the war. Rotation would allow us to show the Iraqi side too. Changing the photo once a week, or thereabouts, would make a lot more people happy, and they might even come back to the article every few weeks just to see the latest header photo. If they are consistently compelling enough. --] 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::Well, keep in mind that this is Misplaced Pages. If we rotated images it would almost certainly cause problems and disagreements on a regular basis, and chances are it would create a situation even worse than that which we had before. For that reason, is there a picture we have found thus far which you prefer more than the patrol image? I still want to settle on one image to use until a better one comes around, rather than throw the page into the quagmire which would occur if we had to find a steady stream of agreeable images. ~'''] (])''' 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) We could archive the image talk with a special name such as "Header image discussion". I know how to do it. We can put a link to it at the top of the main talk page. We can continue all header image discussion there, and paste stuff there from the main talk page too. That way if newbies to the discussion complain we can point them to the link (in bold red letters) at the top of the talk page. See the red link at the top of ] just above the table of contents. Here is an iconic image below for this war. Long after this war is over this photo will be remembered. Women in the military, torture, and ]. ].--] 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

]. ] posing over the body of ], an Iraqi prisoner tortured to death in United States custody in November 2003. ]]
:I think Abu Ghraib pictures have their place, but not as the header for this war. There are thousands of honorable soldiers fighting brutal battles across Iraq. The ones who participated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse should not represent the "Iraq War". Yes, it's a very good picture, but I don't think it belongs as the header for this article. -- ]
::The image would work for the specific section, or for the article dealing with that topic, but it is too limited to a specific event for it to be the image we choose for the entire war. A nice comparison to this image would be the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad. That too is an iconic image, for more reasons than one, but it is hardly suited as an image for the entire war. For the specific ] article, on the other hand, it is suited due to it being specifically of that event. ~'''] (])''' 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)\

(unindent) I am sorry Rangeley, especially considering all the work you have done in this discussion, but I suggest just keeping the map at the top. I think almost all the other images would offend as many people as they would please. Many people absolutely do not want an image at the top that puts the USA in a bad light. So a map is better than some cheesy pro-USA image at the top. The war is in IRAQ. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. Far more have been wounded. --] 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
:We do have the image of the wounded Iraqi child, and the Iraqi soldiers. ~'''] (])''' 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

], Iraq. The ] forces are from 2/1 Battery, 16th Air Assault Brigade. They are working between Basra and Camp Viper, providing ].]]
May be we could have a British picture to make a safe compromise over. It is neither Iraqi or U.S. and dose show servicemen at work on the battlefield.--] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


:I would really like to have an Iraqi in the image. Otherwise, let us use the map image. Maybe we can rotate images with Iraqis in them. Maybe we should make an informal rule at wikipedia to always have someone in war header photos who is someone who grew up in the area of the war. It seem like such a systemic bias to do otherwise. Please see: ]. Here I will probably settle for almost any image with an Iraqi in it. But there are so few at ]. That is telling about the state of English wikipedia. --] 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
::There are few not because of a bias, but because of a lack of available free images. This image contains Iraqis, is it suitable enough? ~'''] (])''' 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
]
*This would be a very good picture as well, being that it's an active one with an American helicopter and Iraqi troops. It used to be the header picture until October 2006, when it was replaced by the four-way split. -- ] 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ba'athist Iraqis on the eve of war-

]

--] 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:Considering the photo isnt even of the war, and not of an active combatant, I dont really think that one should be used. ~'''] (])''' 00:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the image was a cooked up by an Iraqi P.R. firm or sympathizer to make them look 'cool' before the war broke out.
--] 11:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

===Images section break 4===

May be this could be used instead of men?
].--] 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
<sup>Dopy image.</sup>
:No, it doesnt meet any of the criteria. Not suited for an infobox, not compelling, not uniquely relevent. ~'''] (])''' 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks phony to me, like a ] mock-up zaped on to a ] image. Freetown and many others have fallen for a fake, I don't beleve it, but it's all so true!--] 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:If you click on a wikipedia image, you can read the image description page to find out the source of an image. That image came from NASA:
:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=10149 --] 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is so, then why is it of such a low resilution? ] has better maps of Baghdad and Basra!--] 13:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
See-

]

Central Baghdad and Saddar city at 2,000ft and 500ft resilution!--] 14:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:Because Google maps are copyrighted. -- ] 15:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:Also, the wikipedia image is a copy of the highest resolution version available from that particular NASA page. Click the image until it stops enlarging. Both the wikipedia image and the NASA image need to be clicked to enlarge them.

:NASA probably has even higher resolution versions, but may not post them online due to bandwidth constraints. --] 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I'll click them and see them in full.--] 18:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think an effective way of choosing a picture, on top of the mentioned criteria, is to pick one where you immediately realize where it's from. That is, without a caption, the viewer ''knows'' it's from the Iraq War and doesn't have to think too deeply about what exactly the picture is conveying. Most of the ones we've seen (HMMWV and heli, patrol, Iraqis and heli) all convey the "Iraq War" without any captions, but ones such as the "Baghdad Burning" picture just raise the questions: "Where's this from?" "What is this about?" It isn't immediate and sure in the viewer's mind. -- ] 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
<!--EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE--->
<br style="clear:both;"/>
</div>

== Please add a discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war ==

One of the most controversial aspects of the Iraq War is the intelligence that was used to justify it. Please add the following paragraphs in a section discussing the intelligence that led up to the Iraq War.

]<sup>]</sup> 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)]

] 17:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:I completely agree that needs to be added. I can't believe it wasn't in there. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::So why not add it yourselves? Then again, this article is already reaching ]; you may want to rethink it. -- ] 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I did, and it is huge, but this stuff is more central than some of what we already had. I'll refactor as soon as I track down the supposed UAVs off the Eastern Seaboard which belongs in there too. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this topic needs some urgent atention aswell.--] 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

==A usefull set of links!==

War veterens- ]


War dead- ]



Iraqie femanists- ] <small>&mdash;The preceding comment is by ] (] • ]) {{{Time|01:08, 30 July 2007}}}: '']''</small><!-- {{unsigned3}} -->

== This Thing is Huge ==

I was opening the Iraq War article today and I thought there was something wrong with my internet connection. This article has reached ]. We are at 133Kb... that's over four times the size the Misplaced Pages recommends an article to be. Not only that, but the Manual of Style on article size states that after 100Kb, the article should "almost certainly&hellip;be divided up". Suggestions? And this problem will require a little more than just "make another snip here". We already have enough sub-articles to fill a library. We need a major overhaul, IMO. Massive mergers, cuts, and divisions. -- ] 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:I'm going to ] the "]" section down to one paragraph. I think I see some other low-hanging fruit &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 10:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Down to 112 KB. There's probably more ] and refactoring to do, but I'm not up for any more at the moment. It's harder than it looks. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is going to take a ''major'' long-term effort. -- ] 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the refactoring I can think of is done, and all the ''easy'' ] work is done. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:Most of the links in the external links section can be moved to the relevant spinout articles. See ]. I already moved the casualty-related external links to ]?.


:I dislike all the show-hide tables. They add a lot of kilobytes, and little substance. Since one has to go elsewhere to get the info. I think there should be a page with just those tables of lists. We should just link to that table/list page. Just like we lead people to other table/list pages if they want to get more info.--] 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


--] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:When I save the page, and check "properties" for just the saved HTML source code, I get 483 kilobytes. So I don't know what they are measuring to come up with 111 kilobytes when one clicks on the edit button for the whole page. And they may not update that 111 kilobyte number with each edit. I deleted some more and more stuff today, and it still said 111 kilobytes when clicking the full-page edit button. --] 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


== Military situation ==
::You can probably move show/hide tables to template spage, though I don't know what the policy is for such used in just one article. ] 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? ] (]) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
We are down to about half the size of ]. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


== Rudeness ==


Stop the rudeness to iran ] (]) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Smaller pictures, say 150px for the lot exsept for maps and the headder shot.--] 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:What rudeness are you talking about? ] (]) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== War's Other Names == == New draft ==


I have an draft ] beacuse section in this article is too long.
The following is a discussion between myself and ] on VegitaU's ] regarding the alternative names that could be mentioned in the article's first paragraph, and whether "Operation Iraqi Freedom" equates to the war as a whole. I've copied it to here because at this stage it relates mostly to the article's content.] 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


The draft is not yet completed. ] (]) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:I do not appreciate, and do not deserve, being addressed in such an aggressive manner as you just have on my talk page. If you have a problem with my edits, change or request citation in the appropriate areas, and address them with me in a calm and polite manner, and I will reciprocate. Edits that are made in good faith, as mine clearly was, should be considered in a respectful and civil manner. Nwe 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


== Addition of ] to infobox ==
::No, you got rid of a well-known fact, and replaced it with an unreferenced statement. That's why I cited you on your talk page. Sorry if you thought it was "aggressive", but I never made any uncivil remarks. -- VegitaU 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes you did, you were utterly uncivil. You said my edit was "nonsense", and even "vandalism" in your edit summary, prefixed it with this icon, , when there was no need. It is not a well-known fact. I, for one, always took "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to describe the initial invasion. If I am wrong in that then I apologise, but I have heard it used to describe the emergence insurgency. Even if it is ongoing, then it still merely includes "coalition" military operations, which is not the same as the conflict, which now mostly involves internecine Iraqi fighting, as a whole. It is also, incidently, unreferenced. If your problem with the rest of my statement was merely referencing, then you would also have excluded this name, and besides you could merely have requested citation. I would have obliged. And as I have already said, even if you do believe that I only "got rid of a well-known fact", and replaced it with an unreferenced statement", that does not mean I did not act in good faith, and hence deserve an element of civility and respect.Nwe 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::::If you actually read the citation, you'll notice I never used the word "vandalism". When I reverted your edit, I cited you with Twinkle on the basis of adding unreferenced material to the lead. It generated the message and I added a personal note about the nonsense. You had just deleted a well-known, unchallenged fact and replaced it with an unsourced conjecture. It seems you were genuine in your effort and I apologize for offending you, but I stand by my decision. Anyways, I added a source to OIF just to clarify even further: Operation Iraqi Freedom is an ongoing conflict…it hasn't ended. -- VegitaU 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


{{U|Ben Azura}}, with , you would readd ] to the infobox. Per ], the infobox is to summarise key facts ''from the article''. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, ] applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: {{tq|Per ] - not supported by body of article}}. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, ]. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. ] (]) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you apologise for your original message though, or simply for offending me? Apologising for offending someone is usually a cop-out, meaning the person making it actually sees nothing wrong with what they have done. As I have said, it is not a well-known, unchallenged fact. OIF refers to "coalition" military operations in Iraq only, not the conflict in its entirety. If Twinkle is inappropriate to the edit you are making then simply don't use. You also need not have reverted the entirety of my edit, but could merely have requested a citation. Your edit summary uses the word "vandalism", and it was also uncivil to refer to my edit as "nonsense".Nwe 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:Like I said, I apologize for offending you, but I stick by my decision to revert the edit. Since the war was propagated by the United States and it is the major party in the conflict by far, Operation Iraqi Freedom is a correct term to use for the war. The argument you make that it doesn't refer to the conflict in its entirety is reflected in the article: "or in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom". OIF isn't the title of the article. The article deals with the "Iraq War", but "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is what the U.S. calls it and that is written into the article. If you find a source for Third Gulf War, by all means add it. That actually wasn't what led me to revert—it was the fact you deleted 'OIF'. -- VegitaU 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


:I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? ] (]) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Do you stick to your decision to call my edits "vandalism" and "nonsense" and and have a hostile message posted on my talk page? The Iraqis, not to the US, are the major party in the conflict by far. The current version of the article is inaccurate because, while the title is Iraq War, the conflict in its entirety is also know as OIF. Are you really saying that when Sunnis blow up a Shia market or when Shias mutilate a few dozen Sunnis, which is what most of the current violence in Iraq consists of, then that is regarded in the US as a feature of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", even though it doesn't involve Americans in any way? If you only had a problem with part of my edit, you should only have reverted part of it.--] 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: ], ], and ]. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


:::{{U|Ben Azura}}, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. {{U|Swatjester}}, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. ] (]) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::As you've posted our entire conversation here, allow me to retort with the central question: Should we continue having '''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' in this article or not? -- ] 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, its typical to still note the operation name in articles, if a different name becomes more well known and is used as the article name. ~'''] (])''' 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree with you, wholly. -- ] 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
But the article and the war, as I argue above, do not equate.] 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::I have read your argument, Nwe, and it is, to put its simply, incorrect. You allege that because not everything done in the war is done by the USA, we cant note the original US codename. I would point you to ], an article which describes the well known phase of WW2. Not everything described in the article was carried out by Germany, indeed, it also describes the Soviet responses during the duration of the German operation. That is the case here, where America initiated the operation, and has yet to declare it ended (as is noted by sources.) Another more recent and apt comparison is to the ], where, like here, the article is not named after the operation, yet the operation is noted in the introductory paragraph. The article doesnt just describe what Israel did, but also the Palestinian responses. This article does not just describe what the USA does, but also the responses. ~'''] (])''' 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Firstly, you've misunderstood my argument. It isn't that not everything done in the war is done by the US, its that most incidents in the war don't even ''involve'' the US. ] does give details of the Soviet responses to the Germans, but then all of those responses affected and were related to the Germans. You regard the ] as a more apt comparison. For a start, as you yourself say, even in this article the Israeli operation codename is merely noted, not given as an abosolute alternative title. In the same way Barbarossa is defined as "the codename for Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union", not "the first sixth months of fighting on the Eastern Front in World War II". Returning to your Gaza analogy, consider another article, which I don't believe exists, called something like "Fighting in Gaza in 2006". Events described in this would compare far more smoothly to our article. But you couldn't say that fighting in Gaza in 2006 was "also known as Operation Summer Rains in Israel", that would be absurd, because a significant amount of the fighting didn't involve Israel directly at all, but was between Fatah and Hamas. ] 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::I can agree with that train of thought, but heres the problem: This article is not about fighting in Iraq between 2003 and onward. Its about the US initiated war. There is an article about the ], which I would certainly not say is part of the US initiated operation - yet it would be included in a general article detailing fighting in Iraq were one to be made.
::I do, however, take issue with the opening paragraph stating that in the US, it is called OIF. It is not - thats the US military's term for it. I have never said that it should be viewed as an "alternative title," to the same level that things such as Second Gulf War are viewed as alternative titles, but I do think that it should be noted as the initiators military operation name. ~'''] (])''' 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::And just as a note, the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict is not a perfect example. In that case, Operation Summer Rains was declared over in July, whereas the article describes a conflict which goes on to November and includes operations beyond it. This is different from here, because OIF continues. One is a case of a conflict which began with an operation yet goes beyond it, another is a case of a conflict which was conceived as an operation and continues at it. If, at some time, OIF is declared over yet this war which was initiated by it continues, we would do the same thing done at the Israel-Gaza article and state it was initiated as OIF by the USA. I actually thought that this was the case here, with OIF only being the name for the invasion phase until discovering otherwise recently. ~'''] (])''' 00:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::::But though the war was indeed US-initiated, it does not solely involve incidents affecting the US military, but violence in Iraq in its entirety, including Sunni-Shia violence etc., although not in the same detail as ].] 13:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::The civil war resulted from the US initiated war, but is not entirely seperate or parallel. Some aspects are relevent to both, for instance the destruction of the Samarra dome led to increased sectarian violence, which US forces attempted to deal with. There are certainly aspects which are unique to one or another, such as a specific firefight between Sunnis and Shias. I dont think this specific firefight would be considered a part of this Iraq War - but lets say that there was an across the board increase in firefights. As a trend, this might turn into a catalyst for a change in policy by the US forces, in which case it would be relevent to note the trend as relevent to this article. There are a lot of nuances here (and above, with the various cutoffs with whether a conflict is within an operation, or beyond one.) ~'''] (])''' 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Simply because it was a consequence of the US invasion does not mean it is a feature of OIF. Both wars are indeed very far from parallel, which is why all fighting in Iraq is in the same article, but the fact remains that a large proportion of fighting in the Iraq War has no direct US involvement. I am certain that a firefight between Sunnis and Shias would have to be considered part of this Iraq War, as this seems to be the article that includes all aspects of conflict in Iraq. Fighting between Sunnis and Shias very well might affect US policy indirectly, but most incidents will not, and the connection is far too vague to justify the equation of all bloodshed in the country to the US operation. The influence that this type of activity would have on US operations would be much more indirect than the impact on, say, Russian operations on Barbarossa. Can we also agree to a change at least in the wording of the current first paragraph, before further discussing whether the operation needs to be mentioned at all.] 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::If all you wanted is a rewording, I already stated that the military operation name should not be given the same weight as names that are used popularly in areas. "''I have never said that it should be viewed as an 'alternative title,' to the same level that things such as Second Gulf War are viewed as alternative titles, but I do think that it should be noted as the initiators military operation name.'' " This article is not about general fighting, and really I challenge you to take a look at the infobox and tell me where Sunni-Shia fighting fits in. It does not, because this conflict is defined around the United States (and allied forces) efforts in Iraq, against the various (and sometimes unaffiliated) forces which have put up resistance. The civil war is not a ''feature'' of OIF, and I never said this. The Iraqi civil war is a "consequence" of this war, but its not entirely parallel and things which happen within the civil war can be relevent to this conflict as it is defined. Its these specific aspects which are noted in this article, not every aspect of the civil war. ~'''] (])''' 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I have hered it called the '3rd Gulf war'. Iran-Iraq= 1, Gulf war=2, Iraq war=3. --] 01:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


== Human Rights Abuses ==
== Infobox "Combattants" and "Commanders" sections ==


Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
''Infobox Military Conflict'' has the option for three columns of combattants and commanders for a reason, for situations just like this one where there are three sides to a war, all fighting each other. If we include the Shia and Sunni groups all together on the left side, we make it seem like they're working together. It would make much more sense if this article had one column for Sunni forces (including Baathist Iraq), one column for Shia forces, and one column for Coalition and Iraqi Government forces. ] 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture ] (]) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025 ==
:We've got some Sunnis working with al Qaeda, and others fighting them. And the alliances are changing over time. At some points some Shias have worked with al Qaeda, I believe. And then there are the foreign fighters of all persuasions working with all sides, and fighting against some sides and each other. Hasn't there been some factional fighting among Shias, too? I don't remember. And there are many other groups, too. See ].


{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}}
:So I think the current infobox setup is fine. As the saying goes, "If it aint broke, don't fix it." The infobox says it is a multi-sided conflict. If that is inadequate, maybe the wording in the infobox could be improved. --] 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed.
Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"


My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie."
::Yeah. There are a lot of nuanced sides with shifting allegiances, but those are covered in the text, and if we tried to represent them in the infobox, there wouldn't be enough columns. Leaving it with the two sides of the invasion doesn't try to oversimplify because it's going to be seen as such. &larr;]<sup>]</sup> 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. ] (]) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025 ==
==I.P.numbers==
I think the I.P. Numbers on this page may be meat or sock puppets.--] 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}}
== No updates since March ==
Article is too long shorten it. ] (]) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Should John Howard be added as a leader? ==
I notice there have been no updates to your (incredibly biased) article since March. Too much good news happening lately, which you can't bear to report? I'm telling you guys, when we win this thing you're all going to look very foolish. The only way your prophesies of doom can come true is if you manage to convince the American people to quit. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I'll be here trying to win the country's wars.


Seems like it would make sense ] (]) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
From Iraq with Love
] 00:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


:What'd he do? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:And I noticed you've been vandalizing other articles. Getting bored? If you feel around to it, edit this "incredibly biased" article, as you call it, to your liking. Do something productive, you might surprise yourself, but we don't need another whine about POV here. Oh, and I didn't realize was in Iraq. Heh. ] -- ] 00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineeIraq 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
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconIraq Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKurdistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountering systemic bias: Global perspective
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Global perspective task force.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Military history / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconBush family (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family

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.

Section sizes
Section size for Iraq War (74 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 41,287 41,287
Background 6,441 6,441
Pre-war events 19,377 28,031
Opposition to invasion 8,654 8,654
Course of the war 24 131,961
2003: Invasion 13,890 13,890
Post-invasion phase 114 118,047
2003: Beginnings of insurgency 3,438 11,953
Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraq Survey Group 6,638 6,638
Ramadan Offensive 2003 1,877 1,877
Capturing former government leaders 2,800 4,487
Looting of artifacts from Iraqi museums 1,687 1,687
2004: Insurgency expands 7,279 7,279
2005: Elections and transitional government 3,150 3,150
2006: Civil war and permanent Iraqi government 3,922 6,106
Iraq Study Group report and Saddam's execution 2,184 2,184
2007: US troops surge 4,382 24,893
Planned troop reduction 1,646 1,646
Effects of the surge on security 10,944 10,944
Political developments 2,005 2,005
Tensions with Iran 2,255 2,255
Tensions with Turkey 3,024 3,024
Blackwater private security controversy 637 637
2008: Civil war continues 7,307 24,705
Spring offensives on Shiite militias 2,467 2,467
Congressional testimony 2,113 2,113
Iraqi security forces rearm 3,277 3,277
Status of forces agreement 9,541 9,541
2009: Coalition redeployment 65 10,720
Transfer of the Green Zone 1,513 1,513
Provincial elections 3,692 3,692
Exit strategy announcement 1,531 1,531
Sixth anniversary protests 1,319 1,319
Coalition forces withdraw 1,207 1,207
Iraq awards oil contracts 1,393 1,393
2010: US drawdown and Operation New Dawn 12,725 16,757
Iraqi arms purchases 3,095 3,095
The UN lifts restrictions on Iraq 937 937
2011: US withdrawal 7,883 7,883
Aftermath 17 9,508
Emerging conflict and insurgency 9,491 9,491
Casualties 15 3,392
Casualty estimates 3,377 3,377
Impacts 12 26,135
Economic impact 22 6,435
Financial cost 5,021 5,021
Reparations 661 661
Economic recession in 2021 731 731
Humanitarian impact 26 4,361
Humanitarian crisis 4,335 4,335
Environmental impact 29 7,527
Oil pollution 1,786 1,786
Radioactive contamination 4,493 4,493
Ecosystem destruction 1,219 1,219
Impact on the Global War on Terrorism 6,008 6,008
Impact on geopolitics 1,792 1,792
Criticism 11,711 11,711
Human rights abuses 103 14,871
By Coalition forces and private contractors 6,544 6,544
By insurgent groups 6,710 6,710
By post-invasion Iraqi Government 1,514 1,514
Public opinion on the war 73 8,878
International opinion 5,148 8,805
Iraqi opinion 3,657 3,657
Foreign involvement 26 5,791
Suicide bombers 1,702 1,702
Role of Iran 3,214 3,214
Role of Israel 98 98
Role of Russia 751 751
See also 604 604
Footnotes 30 30
References 30 30
Further reading 4,169 4,169
External links 5,217 5,217
Total 298,056 298,056

"Second Persian Gulf War"

Greetings, @Swatjester. To avoid confusion, we should stick to the more widely recognized name, "Iraq War". In case you were unaware, the Iran–Iraq War was known as the First Gulf War, while the Gulf War of 1990–1991 was in fact also known as the Second Gulf War. If we were to follow this naming convention, the Iraq War should be called the "Third Gulf War", but that term isn't widely used. This inconsistency is the issue at hand. Omitting this WP:FRINGE name entirely might be the best solution to address this problem. Skitash (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is more widely known as the Iraq war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. The WP:FRINGE claim here is in fact that the Iran-Iraq War is widely known as the First Gulf War, which is really isn't. That claim is completely unsourced in the Iran-Iraq War article, and sourced only to a single Iraqi journal article in the Gulf War article. It's not widely used otherwise, and I've never seen it used outside of Iraqi or Iranian sources. In contrast, the phrase "Second Gulf War" *is* widely used worldwide to refer to the Iraq War. So if the purpose is to avoid inconsistency, the actual change should be removing the fringe naming from the Iran-Iraq War article, not this one. ⇒SWATJester 14:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
If there's not going to be any further discussion, I'll be re-introducing the "Second (Persian) Gulf War" alternative name here -- the Gulf War article already attributes the various alternative names adequately enough so I'll see if there's any language that can be cribbed from there to improve the presentation of naming history here. ⇒SWATJester 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the operations inside Iraq by Coalition Forces (CF) are known collectively as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF) which is a theater of operations within a wider war known as the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT). The operations by CF within Iraq and Afghanistan are not two separate wars and should not be labeled that way, just as we do not label the various theaters of operation during WWII as the European war, African war, and Pacific war. Incidentally, the operations inside Afghanistan by CF after September 11, 2001 were known collectively as "Operation Enduring Freedom." Dougjaso (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That's simply not correct as a matter of common usage nor historical usage. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are absolutely two different wars; they are not comparable to the WWII theaters of operation, as Iraq and Afghanistan were not allies of each other. Additionally, Operation Enduring Freedom is not the same thing as the war in Afghanistan -- it specifically covers the period from 2001-2014 but also includes actions in the Phillipines (OEF-P) and the horn of Africa (OEF-HOA). ⇒SWATJester 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

PP

Will we need to ask for page protection if the wp:disruption gets too much? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

suggest we need a section on "political impact"

I feel the article realy needs a section on "political impact", meaning the notable political reactions recently to the Iraq War, specifically the highly important consensus in the USA, from both parties that this war was highly negative. this includes statements by George W Bush himself, indicating this. i tried to add some sources data to the article on this, and was asked to open a section on the talk page. i would welcome the chance to discuss this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For a start, why is what Vance or Trump think is important, the war ended in 2011, and why were you referring to something We said in 2023? Also much of this is already covered, in the sections about legality and the criticisms section. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"why is what what trump or vance thinks important." amazing. this is an encylopeida. staements by national leaders are notable. this is a major gigantic historical event. the later reactions by major national leaders is a notable and important way to address this issue. Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
i would gently suggest that if you are seriously asking me why the statements of a president of the US are important, then that takes us too close to being a reddit forum, rather than wikipedia. could we please discuss this as an encyclopedia. i'm sorry, but that reply seems a bit unreasonable to me. i never thought Id hear a response like that here. hoo boy. ok, i do thank you for engaging. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
obviously it seems that you own this article, so I don't wish to disrupt things with my own reasonable ideas. if that's the consensus here, then there is not much chance of altering it. i do appreciate your replies. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
But he was not president at the time, of the invasion, or the withdrawal, thus his views had no relevance to its outcome or prosecution. and read wp:AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
ok. i appreciate your reply. my point is very simple. i am referring to the political impact in all the years after, right up to the present day. so my whole point was the reaction of major notable national leaders,duuring the entire time period after the war ended. again, including any and all years, right up to the date today.
so any and all presidents since then have some relevance, but especially the views of the president from the same party as george w bush himself. Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
An impact means it has had an effect, not that people have an opinion on it, so any RS say this has an impact on Trumps election? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
"political impact " specifically and explictly means a change in the political discourse, landscape, or nature of beliefs or opinions on each side of the political spectrum. so thats why i labeled the section "political impact." by the way i want to thank you, for being a good sport and being willingg to fully discuss here., Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip is as we are badgering the process. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, thats totally fair. Sm8900 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The text that was added and reverted was wrong at many levels. The subject would be better described as political legacy. As such, it is part of the aftermath. If we are going to include detail on this, we should be relying on how this is assessed in good quality sources. The shallowness of the text is unencyclopedic. The text added draws on quotes etc that come very close to being primary sources and therefore, sailing close to WP:OR. A lot of the subject is also woven into other sections of the article. Without considering the article as a whole, tacking on a new section makes the article disjointed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    the sources you are referring to do not exist. it is obvious you are skewing away from reflecting the clear consensus amongst politicians, which is what the whole section was about. you obviously would like to lean towards peer-reviewed journals, in order to get the views of noted academics and historians on the entire topic. so you are choosing to somwhat sidestep the point of the proposed idea, and then disagreeing with it on that basis. Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    every article on the website uses news articles. that is not what WP:OR means. you are sailing close to not knowing what a core principle means, and using it to oppose some possible good ideas for editing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    if we can't get consensus on this, then i may open an rfc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    from, WP:OR:
    A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
    ...A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
    --Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    How do you know? Have you already read the text you are mentioning? (My impression is rather that it hasn't even been written yet, but then your criticism would make no sense.) Gawaon (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    yes, i already wrote it, and then it was removed. Sm8900 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! It would probably be good to add sources to the lead sentence of that text, as well as of each subsection, to avoid the impression that it could be OR and based on a one-sided selection of sources. Otherwise the text reads fine to me, though some copyediting is needed and I would shorten the long quote in the UK section. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    And yes, I had read the text before making my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    ok, i changed the first paragraph to be less generalized and broad. Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

proposed text

here is the proposed text:

Political impact

The overall consensus amongst most of the world community was that the Iraq War was a mistake and was detrimental to the world. at the start of the war, there were signifcant objections from major leaders and governmental entities. For example, on January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region".

Some of the most noteworthy changes in later political consensus on the war was in major countries which participated, notably the United States.

United States

By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. George W Bush admitted in his 2010 memoir Decision Points: “The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false … No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do.”

During the 2016 debates, Donald Trump frequently stated the invasion was totally wasteful and did not produce any useful results. When Jeb Bush seemed to defend the Iraq War in 2016, he was widely criticized, and had to reverse his answer, saying, "“Knowing what we know now I would not have engaged—I would not have gone into Iraq,”

The Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2024, JD Vance, labled the Iraq invasion as disastrous.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, public opinion on the war was very negative.

One article in 2023 noted:

By then it was already obvious that the choice to go to war had turned into one of the most controversial decisions taken by a post-1945 British prime minister, but Campbell could not have foreseen how deeply British politics was to be shaped by Iraq over the next 20 years. It was to tear at successive Labour leaders, weaken the intelligence agencies and paralyse the process of authorising the use of force overseas.

Rather than prompt a sober re-examination of the true influence UK prime ministers had on US administrations, it instead took Britain further from the centre of Europe. ...the Iraq war was a different order of scandal; politicians were not caught with their trousers down or fingers in the expenses till, but instead allegedly doctoring the truth in an attempt to justify war.

References

  1. "Situation in Iraq". Europarl.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
  2. [On the Iraq war, Jeb Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week,, by Ben Jacobs May 15, 2015, UK Guardian.
  3. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush spar over Bush family legacy, By Reena Flores, February 13, 2016, CBS News.
  4. Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush: The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden By Michael grunwald, February 14, 2016, Politico.
  5. Jeb Bush Reverses Himself: ‘I Would Not Have Gone Into Iraq’, BY ZEKE J MILLER, MAY 14, 2015, Time Magazine.
  6. How Jeb Bush Triggered an Iraq War Watershed, By Josh Marshall, May 14, 2015 Talking Points Memo.
  7. JD Vance Criticizes Biden’s Support for Iraq War in 2003 But Pushes Hawkish Policy on China & Iran, Demcracy Now. July 18, 2024.
  8. How Iraq war destroyed UK’s trust in politicians and left Labour in turmoil. Tony Blair’s decision to invade tore at successive Labour leaders and weakened the intelligence services. by Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, 20 Mar 2023.


--Sm8900 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Military situation

Since the political impact of the war is stated in the article, shouldn't we also include who won the war in the military situation (If it was Inconclusive or An Operational success for the coalition, etc.)? Ali aj809 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rudeness

Stop the rudeness to iran 78.150.125.128 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What rudeness are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

New draft

I have an draft Draft:Course of the Iraq War beacuse section in this article is too long.

The draft is not yet completed. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ayad Allawi to infobox

Ben Azura, with this edit, you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Ben Azura, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. Swatjester, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuses

Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed. Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"

My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie." He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. 78.146.11.249 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Ultraodan (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article is too long shorten it. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Should John Howard be added as a leader?

Seems like it would make sense 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What'd he do? Remsense ‥ 论 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: