Talk:Gulf War

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Italy

Why there is no mention about involvement of italy in the conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.73.118 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016

Air bombardment claims

The site states "For 42 consecutive days and nights, the coalition forces subjected Iraq to the most intensive air bombardment in military history. The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties dropping 88,500 tons of bombs…" The data may be true, but the claim of "most intensive air bombardment in military history" is debatable and entirely subjective depending on what they are basing that claim on. Intensive means concentrated, but how are they determining that, by number/tonnage/area/sorties/time?

Until there is something to corroborate the claim, “the most” should either be changed to “one of the most” or “an” (with "in military history" removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.4 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2017‎ (UTC)

USMC

The entire Marine Corps is not even mentioned..Why?

Losses Section

Nobody noticed the last time I brought this issue up, so I'll try again. In the casualty part of the infobox, there is a part citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed.

Losses Section

Nobody noticed the last time I brought this issue up, so I'll try again. In the casualty part of the infobox, there is a part citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed.

Dates of the war

Is it normal to count the Kuwait invasion as part of the war, to me this seems odd.Firestar47 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, and so currently does part of the article (Section 4: Run-up to the war) and so did all the media at the time (before this war began in mid January 1991, 'Gulf War' actually meant the Iran-Iraq War), and quite likely so do many (quite likely most, and possibly even almost all) Reliable Sources (and other sources) today. And quite likely this is a non-trivial matter that damages Wikipedia's reputation. But, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not sufficiently interested to try to fix it myself (it can be a lot of work to find what is the preponderance of Reliable Sources, and then to get this accepted by enough other editors). However I may add in a citation needed (tho one citation obviously proves nothing about the preponderance of Reliable Sources). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Incidentally, for what it's worth, Google currently gives about 60,000 (and 9000 books) for "1990-91 Gulf War", against the far greater about 450,000 (and 80,000 books) for "1991 Gulf War". But of course Google cannot distinguish between Reliable and unreliable source, and somebody might also argue that it's just easier to give a single date and that there are other ways of writing "1990-91 Gulf War", etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:UNDUE, even if it eventually turned out that most Reliable Sources give 1990, we would still be required to give due weight to the 1991 minority, which we are seemingly not currently doing here (and this also applies to the 1990 view if it turns out to be the minority). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Quite likely the 1990 start-date is to blame for the fact that we currently (and ever since 2016) have a Redirect article called "1990 invasion of Iraq". There was no invasion of iraq in 1990, but I don't know how to fix this properly, as I don't know how to find the articles, if any, that are telling our readers that such an invasion occurred in 1990.

• I also notice that there have seemingly been previous attempts to fix this problem, as can be seen from the infobox start date field in versions around late 2017 (for instance here)), but these attempted fixes were removed at some later date.

• That said,after further reflection, I think the simplest solution for our problem here is to replace my CN requests with a footnote that includes citations to Reliable Sources giving 1990 and 1991.At least I know how to do this, tho it may take me a little time (but I'm leaving the CNs temporarily in place until then, because they signal to our readers that the date is somewhat problematic, and because their Reason field is in effect such a footnote, albeit one that will only appear if readers leave their cursor hovering there, which many will understandably not realize they need to do). Once the footnote is in place, the existing 1990 start date should presumably stay there per WP:CONSENSUS unless and until a consensus emerges to change to 1991, which might require the difficult task of convincing most editors that most Reliable Sources say 1991 (which may not even be correct, as it is very hard and perhaps even impossible to prove in practice, and in any case is probably more effort than it's worth once a suitable footnote is in place).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy with regard to first U.S. Forces in Desert Shield/Desert Storm

The USS Eisenhower Battle Group were the first US Forces in the region after transiting the Suez Canal on August 3rd. Air Operations began on August 4th, monitoring Iraqi activities along the Saudi and Iraq and Kuwaiti border. This was 4 days before the arrival of the USS Independence Battle Group into the Persian Gulf and 3 days before the arrival of the F-15 squadrons of the US Air Force at King Khalid Military City. From August 3rd through August 7th, the USS Eisenhower Battle Group was the ONLY US Forces in the area.

I know this information because I was on board the USS Eisenhower as a member of VAQ-140, the Patriots, when we were recalled to the ship in Naples Italy on August 2nd and transited from there to and through the Suez Canal on August 3rd. We arrived in the Red Sea late on the day of August 3rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NLWFAinkenai (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have citations for this? We can't use first-hand accounts as sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Current year mention outside source

The article contains an "As of 2020", this should probably be updated?

Counter Reconnaissance and Breach sections

These sections deal with one battalion level sub-unit, 600 troops in a conflict involving 1.5m and multiple division level forces. They are inappropriate to the level of the article and appear to have been repeated verbatim or near verbatim from both the Battle of Norfolk and Task Force 1-41 Infantry articles (it also looks from the talk section of the latter that the author was part of the unit). If every unit was to be covered at this level we would need to expand the Gulf War article by some several hundred sections, for the Coalition alone. If the information is worth retaining then it should be removed from here and probably from the Battle of Norfolk article, there's no need to keep it in three places.

Additionally the sections do not fit within the structure of the article as they relate to the detailed conduct of one segment of the ground campaign, and precede the Ground Campaign section which doesn't offer remotely the same level of detail. 86.8.177.103 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)