Talk:Iraq War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.


This is an ongoing war![edit]

I've said this repeatedly, and the most recent events continue to prove my point. Charles Essie (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree. Seeing as how a coalition of Ba'ath loyalists lead by the Baath era VP of Iraq, in a devil's pact with ISIS just drove the legally recognized government from North Iraq and took a metropolis like Mosul and now are in the process of making war against the Shia government and even setting up their own pretender goverments, it's pretty much every major belligerent from the war plus the Iranians duking it out. I'd support adding a note at the listed end date of the war stating that it represents the withdrawal of the coalition, but the war is still ongoing. The Soviet war in Afghanistan is probably a good example of how to record this kind of event. Freepsbane (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Not really sure if it is right now, I would say that it is possible for the war to "resume" if the US decides to re-enter Iraq (I don't believe that it should be an entirely different War though should that happen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.11.107 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The war didn't end when the US withdrew, it simply continued on without it just like the vietnam war did after the US withdrew from there in 1973. This conflict is ongoing, and to say otherwise is a biased statement that leans towards the US government's POV.XavierGreen (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a different article for the insurgency. This particular conflict is different and I think depends on how you would define insurgency at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
When exactly did the war end and then begin again? The insurgency is the same one post invasion, the only difference is that the US withdrew. To state that the war ended in 2011 is US POV.XavierGreen (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Charles Essie, can you explain how this affects how the article should be written? TFD (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states that the war ended on 15 December 2011, that's incorrect, the war never ended. Charles Essie (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "Iraq War" is sometimes used to denote only the period of conflict involving the presence of foreign troops, similar to how the the name "Soviet war in Afghanistan" is used to denote the period of conflict in Afghanistan that involves Soviet troop presence. The conflict continued after the Soviets left, but nobody says that the Soviet war in Afghanistan is still ongoing. The best solution to this problem I think is to change the title of this article to Iraq War (2003–11). This title better reflects the content of this article. Another option is to keep the current title and merge the content from Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) to here. However, this article is already very long, so I oppose this idea.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking we keep the article exactly the way it is, while making the proper adjustments to the infobox and the lead section to reflect that this is ongoing war. Charles Essie (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If we do that, we need to add post-US withdrawal content into the body of the article as well (The lede and infobox is a summary of the material in the body). We have to go all the way, not just half way.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Not to me. Like I said, this article is already too long. It's better and simpler to just change the title.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The events occurring now in Iraq are so intimately bound up with the U.S. invasion, and Iraq War altogether, that I have to agree with Charles Essie (among others above). Yes, the article will be longer, but to end the war in 2011 and separate it from ongoing events is deeply misleading/dishonest (or just wrong: I don't think anyone is trying to mislead or deceive readers). We have an obligation to present the war objectively, so if adding a paragraph at the end and a few sentences to the lead is necessary, we can cut some sentences elsewhere. -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree the article should not say the war ended and should provide information about the on-going conflict. It is similar to conflicts in many other countries where insurgents will oppose the central government sometimes for decades. TFD (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It already does. This article talks about the US involvement/intervention in Iraq, which lasted from march 2003 to December 2011. There's already a section called 'post U.S. withdrawal'. We are pretty much talking about two different conflicts. The US war in Iraq, and the continuing of the insurgency against the Iraqi government. Coltsfan (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
They're not two different conflicts, they're two parts of one conflict, the American-led war is over, but the insurgency/civil war is ongoing and is escalating. Maybe we could split this article in two, one article about the war from 2003 to 2011, and another about the entire war from 2003 to the present, just like how we have separate articles for the different phases of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present). Charles Essie (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the way it is. Much more simple and efficient. This one talks about the conflict of 2003-11. The post U.S. withdrawal conflit already got an article of it's own. Don't try to complicate something that's already complicated. Coltsfan (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm okay with this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think one could make the case that a larger war, "The Persian Gulf War" or the "Great Levantine War" has been more or less non-stop, with some ceasefires and realignments, since 1979. Of course, that would be "original research." 24.167.52.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed...--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I see two phases. The first was the U.S. invasion which ended with "Mission Accomplished", the second was an insurgency that has not ended. The (temporary?) withdrawal of U.S. troops is really the Vietnamization of the war, rather than its end. TFD (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem of the phrase "Iraq War". Here's a quote from a recent survey: "Seventy-five percent do not think the Iraq War was worth it".[1] Notice that it says "was", not "is", meaning the the Iraq War is over. In this case the phrase "Iraq War" is used to refer to the US war in Iraq. If we are to change the scope of this article to include the post-US withdrawal phase, we'd need to use a different name for the title than "Iraq War". I think "War in Iraq (2003-present)" is a better alternative.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

FT, that's an American poll. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link to 2003/2004 poll results for the EU and U.S. (Table 5.5 - US for 2004 onlu) for "Do you think the war in Iraq was worth the loss of life and the other costs of attacking Iraq or not?"[2] This is just "original research." TFD (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm cool with "war in Iraq". That's phrase is not a proper noun, unlike Iraq War. "War in Iraq" is a bit too generic for a title though. A more specific title would be "War in Iraq (2003-present)".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say there's no need to add the years in the title, as this war is commonly known as the Iraq War (or War in Iraq). That being said, I totally agree that this is an ongoing war, and I've said so for quite some time. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
But this article is pretty much about the US war in Iraq (March 2003 – December 2011) and that is not a ongoing conflict. There are plenty of other articles about the ongoing fight and the struggle against the insurgency (here). Coltsfan (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That is just like splitting the Vietnam War article into Vietnam War (1959-1973) and Vietnam War (1973-1975). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. The Vietnam war started in 1946. You got the French war (1946-1954), and the civil war (1955-1975, with the US direct involvement from 1964 to 1972). It's already divided into the two phases of that conflict. That's what the sources tell us. And here, the sources tell us that this war effectively ended at december 2011. The number of deaths had reached pre-2003 levels. But then, just after the US withdrawal, the insurgency went back again (the second phase of this war). But if you want to put all this insurgency in a single page, well, actually the fighting in Iraq started back in 1991 and continued non-stop since then. Coltsfan (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Not the same. The Vietnam War broke out when the FNL launched its guerilla campaign with Northern support in 1959, five years after the conclusion of the French War. And the Iraqi insurgency never ended, it just temporarily scaled down (pretty much like the FNL in the late sixties). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Then you should change the article about the Vietnam War. And history, for that matter, because it doesn't support what you are saying. Coltsfan (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it was much more of a short lull than neat ending. Washington Institute for Near East Policy says[3] major Sunni insurgent groups like al-Douri's ]were still very much intact and sheltered by friendly tribes by the time of the withdrawal. That makes it much closer to the temporary ceasefires the Soviets inked with the Mujahedin in Afghanistan in the year preceding the withdrawal or Vietnam's Paris Peace Accords. That analogy's even more relevant given that key players from the war like al-Douri are said to be as big as ISIS[4] and leading[5] the hodgepodge of militants, former Awakening and Ba'athists running all over north Iraq. Freepsbane (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The first and second Indochina wars were separated not only by a "lull", but also by the Geneva Conference. There has been no such thing in Iraq. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I placed my reply in a funny part of the article so that may've made my point unclear, but I was referring to the accords the states signed prior to their withdrawal. That said, you've got another point about the complete absence of any conference between the belligerents or general ceasefire. That's another chunk of evidence in favor of your position. As I said before, I'd be in favor of adding a note mentioning that the conflict continued after the Collation's withdrawal. Freepsbane (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is the Status of Forces Agreement, that was a formal agreement between Iraq and the US to end their war there. But if you expect some sort of pact or "conference between the belligerents", you better seat and wait because they have being fighting each other since 1991 (first the Shi'a factions against Saddam, a sunni, and now the Sunnis against the Shi'a). Plus, you got the infobox that says "Rise of sectarian insurgency after U.S. withdrawal and spillover with the Syrian Civil War" and "Resurgence of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria", with the proper links. And there is also an entire section about it. Coltsfan (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The Vietnam War also had a brief "lull", namely the Paris Peace Accords. Still, there is no talk of dividing the Vietnam War into two pages. The Iraq War may be over from an American perspective, but in Iraq it is obviously an ongoing conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The Vietnam War is already divided in two articles, as I said before. But let us be clear that this war is far more complicated. What is happening in Iraq it's part of a far longer conflict between sunnis and shias that has been going on for a thousand years. But, to your credit the ongoing conflict in Iraq already got a article of it's own. This is about the 2003-2011 war. All civil wars, can be found here. This article already makes it clear that the sectarian war is still going on, but the "first phase" of the Iraq War, the US war (what this article is all about) is over. The sectarian war drags on, as you can see here. Coltsfan (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A war doesn't necessarily end only because the United States withdraws. While Iraq has had decades of internal strife between Shiites and Sunnis, tensions didn't fully escalate before the removal of Saddam Hussein by the US-led coalition and the subsequent fighting between the Iraqi government, Sunni militias and Shia militias. As TFD mentioned, Iraq is now in a phase of Vietnamization. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fair to mention that in the run up to the withdrawal, analysts were already saying that activity by major insurgent groups [6] like the Naqshbandi was escalating and their cells were staging daily attacks against the government throughout Sunni areas of Iraq. So calling it a pause or claiming it was close to being over is misleading. It's not two wars, the only difference is that after the withdrawal and after they were able to hammer out their coalition those groups shifted from guerrilla warfare to taking and holding territory. Freepsbane (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course, there was only some minor skirmishes, no escalations prior to 2003. Just some 300,000 dead in a revolt here, 82,000 in a rebellion there. But you gonna count that? Please. I'm sorry, but all you two are saying is speculation and original research. You are trying to get ahead of yourselves on that matter. What will decide when the war ended is not us. What's up to us is if we are going to follow that or not. There is an ongoing conflict alright, but different scenarios and different characters, maybe all part of the same puzzle but two different scenarios. I say we wait before making any change. In 1973, when the last US soldier left vietnamese soil, we would have said it that war had ended. But it would be only after the events of 1975 that we would make the corrections. So don't get ahead of yourselves. Coltsfan (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I would love to see your sources then. You may say it's original research, but I've dropped various sources from groups like WINEP confirming that the very group that played the leading role in sacking Mosul was already spreading and launching an increasing number of attacks prior to the withdrawal. Unlike the Shia revolt these are the same groups and they, according to reliable sources were active during both phases of the war. The burden of proof lies on you if you want to claim this is a completely unrelated conflict. I've already posted sources contradicting that. Freepsbane (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My sources? Allow me...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... All theses sources say that although there was still combate going on, the Iraq War was over. The insurgency (on different levels, like since 1991) was still going on, of course. But the "main" war (that this article is all about) was in fact over. Coltsfan (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Those sources are all quotes of politicians declaring the war to be over. Look at the source guidelines, what a politician from one of the major belligerents says isn't a definitive fact. Furthermore, if you look at every similar article, the withdrawal of a single belligerent from a war does not mean an end if all the other parties are still fighting. In this case saying the "main" war seems like contortion when sources say al-Douri's group was intact and active and just three years later overran North Iraq's major cities while in a coalition with other belligerents from this war. If were go by the Soviet-Afghan article as an example, it's acceptable to split a conflict after a major phase, but it isn't proper to say it "ends" simply because the withdrawal of one of the many belligerents. Freepsbane (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Those are RS. And like the sources say, the insurgency was still going on, but the main conflict was somewhat done. The [civil] war might have restarted but this conflict here, was done. After the US withdrawal, the violence went back again. I would have no problem calling it Iraq War (2003–11) though. Coltsfan (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If we took statements from politicians leading the belligerents as reliable sources in determining the facts of a conflict, then I take it we'd have to rewrite quite a few articles. Those claims were contradicted by analysts affiliated with the military and quite honestly that's more believable and verifiable than political rhetoric. Like Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan you can't clearly say the "main" conflict was done or over when those belligerents are three years later marching on Hue, Kandahar or Mosul. Iraq War (2003–11) could certainly be part of a way to more clearly define phases. Freepsbane (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If CNN, Daily News, World News and USA Today are not RS, then a lot of articles should be rewritten indeed! Coltsfan (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Coltsfan, you're muddling what it means to use a reliable source. CNN and USA Today are, in general, reliable sources. If they quote a politician, we can trust that they are accurately reproducing what that politician said. But the fact that CNN and USA Today are reliable sources does not imply that whenever they quote a politician, that politician is speaking the truth. Freepsbane's objection is that you're presenting the opinions of politicians as reliable sources, simply because they're reported in reliable sources. If USA Today's news staff reports that the Iraq War is over, that's one thing. If USA Today reports that a politician claimed the Iraq War is over, that's an entirely different matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thucydides411, the sources not only bring quotes from politicians, but also bring analysis of the conflict. The sources that I showed clearly state that there is/was a consensus among the news media that the war formally ended on december 2011, although they recognize that there was still a insurgency to fight (hence Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal)). Coltsfan (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Coltsfan, I didn't get that from reading the articles. The only article which makes a statement about the war being over is the NY Daily News article, while the others simply report on statements by Obama and other administration officials. The NY Daily News' headline makes the claim about the end of the war, but the NY Daily News is a tabloid, and is pretty famous for its "colorful" headlines. Other than the NY Daily News, the article that comes closest to saying that the war is over is the last CNN article you posted, which says that "America's contentious and costly war in Iraq officially ended Thursday." That's entirely in line with what a number of editors here have been arguing, namely that the American phase of the war has ended, but that the war continues. If you disagree with my reading of the articles you posted, then give quotations from them. Simply claiming that they "clearly state" that the war is over, and then claiming that this is a media consensus, is not enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thucydides411, you got the NBC source says "after a ceremony Thursday in Baghdad formally marking the end of the war, the timing and all other details of the departure of the last convoy were kept under tight secrecy due to security concerns. The low-key end to the war was just another reminder of how dangerous Iraq remains, even though violence is lower now than at any other time since the 2003 invasion." The USA Today also makes an analysis of the conflit on the fifth paragraph. The CNN source covers the ceremony that marked the end of the Iraq war (as they said it very clearly). The focus of this article, as it's currently written, is about the US war on Iraq. The sectarian violence that spread between sunnis and shias is listed on many different articles about it (see here). For instance, the fighting between the Iraqi government and the insurgency, from 2004-2011, is barely mentioned. As I said before, I have no opposition to renaming the article "Iraq War (2003-2011)". The perception is that this war is going to be just like the Afghan war. Coltsfan (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Coltsfan, the NBC source talks about the "formal" end to the war because it is discussing Obama's declaration that the war is over. The author doesn't state that the war is over. These articles are discussing Obama's declaration, and the ceremonies that the US army held to "formally" end the war. They're not weighing in on whether the war itself is over. We could make the distinction you're tacitly endorsing, that of renaming the article to restrict it to the period between the US invasion in 2003 through the US pullout at the end of 2011, but I'm not even sure that makes sense. With the US again involved, we don't know whether the pullout really marks the end of the "American" phase of the war. The difficulty is that because the war is still going on and its future course is very uncertain, we don't know how it will be divided up in the future. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Um "Mission Accomplished" at all? A politician's pronouncements do not reality make. Appeals to authority aside, the only things those prove are that politicians claimed the war was over at various points. Extrapolating more than that is just original research. Analysis from the military noting that attacks were escalating is a tad more empiric. Freepsbane (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Appeal to authority? Did you even read WP:RS? Btw, only three out of the eight sources I posted are mostly quotes by politicians. And btw, the "Mission accomplished speech" marks the end of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The day of the speech is the day that the invasion was formally declared ended. Coltsfan (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ideally, we should have an umbrella article called War in Iraq (2003–), with the invasion, the civil war, the pre-withdrawal insurgency and the post-withdrawal insurgency being linked to as main articles in the chapters, which would then only have to provide short summaries, making such an article more comfortable to read. What do people think? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
We should definitely have an umbrella article, that's mainly what I wanted anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not know what a president would do when "counseling" with over 400 American servicemen. It's advice, is not it? And Americans are already bombing Iraq. 177.182.50.110 (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, the Iraq War never ended! Charles Essie (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Cut down the intro[edit]

As it stands the current lede of the article is not compliant with our policies per WP:LEDE, specifically, I feel like the current lede is much too wordy, too detailed, and too much "he-said, she-said"; moreover too many primary sources are cited. In general a section like this is a nightmare for the average reader looking to gain a basic understanding of the Iraq War. As such, I am proposing that we cut the section down significantly. My first draft can be viewed below. Please help me edit this, and try to keep it below 5 paragraphs. Feel free to start a sub-page for editing if that is more convenient. If there are no objections to my current proposal I will plow ahead with the changes. Colipon+(Talk) 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


The Iraq War[nb 1] was a protracted armed conflict in Iraq that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States. It continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the newly formed Iraqi government.[1] The United States officially withdrew from the country in 2011, but the insurgency as well as various dimensions of the civil armed conflict continue.

The George W. Bush Administration offered a wide range of explanations for its decision to invade Iraq; the most prominent reason was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies.[2][3][4] Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda,[5] while others cited the desire to end a repressive dictatorship and bring democracy to the people of Iraq.[6][7]

The invasion began on 16 March 2003. The U.S. launched a "shock and awe" surprise attack without declaring war. Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed as U.S. forces swept through the country. Saddam was captured in December 2003 and executed by a military court three years later. However, the power vacuum following Saddam's demise as well as the mismanagement of the U.S. occupation led to renewed sectarian violence between Shia and Sunnis as well as a lengthy insurgency against U.S. and coalition forces, resulting in thousands of U.S. casualties. The Bush Administration responded with a troop surge in 2007.

The U.S. began withdrawing its troops from the country in February 2009, after the election of President Barack Obama.[8][9] Nonetheless, a substantial American military presence continued in the country until December 2011.[10]

As a result of the war, Iraq held multi-party elections in 2005. Nouri Al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006 and formed Iraq's first stable post-Saddam government. Since the U.S. withdrawal, significant violence has continued in Iraq. Grievances between various sectarian groups remain unresolved, and general quality of life in Iraq remains poor. As of 2014, the country on the verge of a renewed full-blown civil war involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

  1. ^ "Iraq War". Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 27 October 2012. 
  2. ^ Center for American Progress (29 January 2004) "In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat" americanprogress.org
  3. ^ Senator Bill Nelson (28 January 2004) "New Information on Iraq's Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction", Congressional Record
  4. ^ Blair, A. (5 March 2002) "PM statement on Iraq following UN Security Council resolution"[dead link] Number 10 Downing Street
  5. ^ "The Weekly Standard, Saddam's al Qaeda Connection". 
  6. ^ "President Discusses the Future of Iraq" The White House, 26 February 2003
  7. ^ "Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?" 60 Minutes
  8. ^ Thomma, Steven (27 February 2009). "Obama to extend Iraq withdrawal timetable; 50,000 troops to remain". McClatchy Newspapers. 
  9. ^ Feller, Ben (27 February 2009). "Obama sets firm withdrawal timetable for Iraq". Associated Press. [dead link]
  10. ^ "Combat brigades in Iraq under different name — Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq". Army Times. 19 August 2010. Retrieved 15 January 2011. 

Object, if we're going to cut it down, we'd all be well served by a lengthy discussion about what salient points deserve to make it into an intro instead of having a version unilaterally rammed through without consensus. Freepsbane (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • And I'm certain there will be many points of contention between all the members on various issues. For instance: "Select U.S. officials accused Saddam of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda" is the sole premise pertaining to that purported connection and therefore is implied as valid. I'm certain I don't need to point out that the numerous sources composed of congressional hearings, intelligence assessments and so forth have all said there was no prewar collaboration. Therefore, in it's current form, the suggested intro would be advancing premises that are at best fringe and thereby undoubtedly run afoul of Wikipedia:Undue weight guidelines. Freepsbane (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to emphasize that I am here in the spirit of friendly discussion. This is the reason I did not unilaterally change the article on first instance. But I think the point needs to be made here that anything is better than the status quo, which is far too long to be cogent for the average reader, far too long to be a useful encyclopedic resource, far too pedantic and will likely lose the interest of the reader, and lastly does not comply with our policies and style guidelines. I am by no means of the opinion that Saddam collaborated with Al-Qaeda, nor do I feel strongly about its inclusion in the intro; this is just a first draft that comes from my overall assessment of the article. I would caution against dismissing this proposal outright and continue instead discussing which points should go in and which should not in the spirit of building a workable consensus for all. Colipon+(Talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted and you've got my thanks for talking it all out with us. Also, I'm in full agreement about it being too long and full of extraneous and often redundant information. It'd certainly help the article if we could cut it down into a more succinct intro and I'm certain this would be a good place for everyone to hammer out a final version. No objections to your ultimate goal. Freepsbane (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Suppose it'd be a good idea to put a note on the article so the other editors know we'll be rewriting it. Freepsbane (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Freepsbane, thanks for your cordial response. So let's get right down to it - which parts of the proposed revisions above do you believe should be tweaked? Are you comfortable with its structure? I included the Al-Qaeda link only because the Bush Administration had included the 'suspected link to Al-qaeda' as part of the rationale to go to war, not because I would like to state it as a fact. What would be a better way to re-write this, or do you believe it should be included at all? Colipon+(Talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering the size of the article, I think it would be worse to cut it down to that extent. Have you guys started a sandbox to work on it or are you planning to? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with the notion that the length of the intro has to be necessarily commensurate with the length of the article, if only for the reason that the length of the article itself is not justifiable. See the Barack Obama article for a good (and appropriately sized) article intro for a lengthy article. I have begun a draft at User:Colipon/sandbox and welcome other users to contribute. Colipon+(Talk) 14:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I second that the intro should be more compact. Also the opening paragraph states that "roughly 96.5 percent of the casualties suffered by the U.S.-led coalition were suffered during the second phase, rather than the initial invasion" while leaving out the IMHO vital information that the invasion/first phase has been justified by incorrect data and was breaking international law. I'm not sure if I would consider this neutral regarding relevancies but I sure don't think the casualties suffered by one party only necessarily needs to be addressed in the 1st paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.114.242 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Results Section[edit]

Rather than start a potential edit war with Freepsbane over this section, I'd like to build actual consensus on the terminology used here. Given that the Iraq War proper lasted until 2011, the current sectarian violence raised by ISIS is a separate conflict in its own right. Numerous sources point to that direct phrasing, and the inability of the Iraqi government to quell the spillover from the Syrian Civil War, while a result of the Coalition Withdrawal, does not change the historical nature of the original coalition War in Iraq. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A bit of history, I originally reverted an act of vandalism yesterday which restored the terms 'Coalition Victory.' I don't see any history of any consensus reached on the exact phrasing used here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 21:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Solarra: If you bothered checking Archive 29, this has already been dicussed. It's best to leave how it was on July 8 before User:Revihist changed it without consensus. This is just going around in circles at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Supersaiyen312: I concur, it is best to leave it as the list, I'll restore that. I agree that the list documenting the phases of the war is far more valuable than a blanket statement either way. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 21:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's more than a little disingenuous to claim removing a unsourced claim regarding victory constitutes vandalism. As mentioned we had a lengthy discussion about whether that label was appropriate and the overwhelming consensus was that it wasn't up to encyclopedic standards. Repeatedly reintroducing a clause against editor, and source consensus falls much closer to breaking undue weight guidelines. Plenty of sources including the Army[7] said Sunni militants like the ones lead by al-Douri were spreading and steeping up attacks against the government prior to the withdrawal. The only sources claiming victory are a few partisan outlets who by national and global standards are a tiny minority.Freepsbane (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of content after being reverted and against consensus and without edit summaries is unacceptable edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that they've now likely escalated to socks and that an older likely sock vowed to wipe out the other editiors' "lies" I'm not very optimistic about Revhist ever talking this out. Freepsbane (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Posts[edit]

The reasoning behind my posts were merely to illustrate a fervent political/ideological bias which, I believe, pervades this article. The above arguments regarding current material on this page only serve to support that statement. Obviously, I can agree that any post to any page on Wikipedia is subjective, and hence open to debate. However, merely by making the small edits which I did (that of typing "Coalition Victory" into the results section, several times) the changes were immediately removed within hours of being posted and herein declared vandalism. My profile was additionally banned and flagged for edit warring. The aforementioned actions were then echoed here, noting my failure to achieve a consensus on entering the term, as was my regrettable refusal to engage in civilized discussion. My actions resulted in precisely what I expected they would - namely, they made plain the use of this article not as a reliable source for information (that a young person might use for a history project), but rather a vehicle for a political/ideological view. The repeated deletion of my simple edits, I believe, illustrate a clear effort to purge this article of any points that do not adhere to the overall ideological drive behind it. Anyone can look at this article and see its lack of objectivity. There are 4 sources for casualties (with an additional casualty link), three phases of the war (invasion, post-invasion, and post-withdrawal (the third could perhaps be called post-post invasion)), one-third of the nine points in the results section redundantly cite the insurgency, and amidst the 17 subheadings of the article, 4-8 are the most apparent in ideological bias(casualty estimates, criticism and cost, humanitarian crises, human rights abuses, and of course, followed by public opinion) - and don't forget the separate section regarding the awarding of Iraq oil contracts. This says nothing of the six divisions of belligerents or the five divisions of commanders. In seeking to stake an "anti-Iraq War" claim, this article has become a parody of itself, and that is unfortunate, as I have always valued the vast array of information on Wikipedia. In regards to any protests of my own misguidedness/bias/etc. (no I will not respond - yes, that illustrates my uncivilized nature) keep this in mind: only those who actively support an ideology seek to silence opposing points of view. This page exposes that shortfall. In my opinion (of course), the quick removal of my simple edits and the equally swift denouncement of my civilized nature make apparent that there is a clear effort to sanitize this article of any points that do not adhere to an overall ideological bias. Perhaps my statements here will remain long enough to be read by a few people before they too are stricken from the website. Quite a striking reality concerning what Wikipedia, a site that once billed itself as an "Encyclopedia," has become. Revihist (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You explicitly used misleading edit summaries to confuse other editors such as m or labeling major ideologically driven changes as “grammar” or “spelling” improvements. Deliberately lying to and confusing other editors with blatantly false editing summaries shows a lack of respect for other editors in itself. Engaging in sock puppetry after other editors showed up to support the consensus version did you no favors either, those are actions editors regardless of political affiliation get blocked over all the time. You could have discussed your objections with other editors to obtain accommodation as others do, but elected not to. Furthermore, the current no-headline infobox format is the product of extensive discussion and compromise and was agreed on by near all editors as the least bad option. It’s hard to accommodate everyone, but when near all sources including former defense secretaries, historians, officers, and centrist news media (never mind the legion of international sources) all describe the ultimate outcome as a strategic mess, we can’t promote a minority and partisan view without sacrificing all the, neutrality, reliable source, and undue weight principles that make us an objective and independent source of information. For that reason, it’s perfectly legitimate to cite military references regarding the interminable nature of the insurgency for the sake of allowing readers to grasp the flow of the conflict. Additionally, It can’t be called a victory or said to have ended militarily when the strategic objectives the Coalition laid out weren’t met and given that military sources themselves assert that security improvements quickly plateaued and tribe allied insurgent groups like the one lead by the deposed Ba’ath Vice President were launching hundreds of attacks a month against the coalition and gearing up for offensives after the withdrawal. This isn’t just a hippie, “anti-war” pov either, historians including retired officers such as Westpoint’s Prof. Daddis say the efforts of polemicists and bureaucrats like Paul Bremer to spin the war as a great triumph betrayed by a civilian government represents a form of historical revisionism that is incompatible with analyzing the nuanced nature of the war. The article should be based on what sources say, not the political talking points of partisan groups. Freepsbane (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Concerned Historian - Despite my notification that I would not respond, I must conclude my argument here with this. Thank you for the response. I could only have made the point discussed herein that much more apparent via a visual aide. You have provided it most appropriately. Also, thank you again for backing up my statement regarding the use of this page as a tool for partisan talking points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revihist (talkcontribs) 04:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).