Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:34, 11 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

	Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 1, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
	A 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.

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force Iraq Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Kurdistan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Countering systemic bias: Global perspective This 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. This article is supported by Global perspective task force. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Military history / History High‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). Bush family (inactive) This 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

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)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• C-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
• C-Class vital articles in History
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Iraq articles
• Top-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• C-Class Kurdistan articles
• High-importance Kurdistan articles
• WikiProject Kurdistan articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class Countering systemic bias articles
• Unknown-importance Countering systemic bias articles
• Global perspective task force
• WikiProject Countering systemic bias articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• C-Class Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• United States military history articles with to-do lists
• C-Class United States History articles
• High-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States History articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists