Talk:Iraq War: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Iraq War/Archive 31) (bot |
→Lancet survey: new section |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
:'''''"There are many problems with this line in the lead. It is unsourced. It is vague (who are the "many", specifically? Scholars? World leaders? The public?) More fundamentally, it is not supported by ANYTHING in the body except Nelson Mandela" —TTAAC''''' |
:'''''"There are many problems with this line in the lead. It is unsourced. It is vague (who are the "many", specifically? Scholars? World leaders? The public?) More fundamentally, it is not supported by ANYTHING in the body except Nelson Mandela" —TTAAC''''' |
||
{{Ping|TheTimesAreAChanging}} This I cannot disagree with. Perhaps someone with enough care and time can write something sourced about it. --[[User:YeOldeGentleman|YeOldeGentleman]] ([[User talk:YeOldeGentleman|talk]]) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
{{Ping|TheTimesAreAChanging}} This I cannot disagree with. Perhaps someone with enough care and time can write something sourced about it. --[[User:YeOldeGentleman|YeOldeGentleman]] ([[User talk:YeOldeGentleman|talk]]) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Lancet survey == |
|||
Given the near-universal agreement by government bodies and scientific observers that it's an inaccurate study, why is it till listed in the casualty box? The other estimates are much closer to each other and have much more solid support by various professionals. [[Special:Contributions/69.121.144.8|69.121.144.8]] ([[User talk:69.121.144.8|talk]]) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 29 December 2015
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
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
A news item involving Iraq War was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 September 2010. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Global perspective task force Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Iraq War: Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:
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. |
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
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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, 34Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
Iraqi Opinion Section
"In 2006, a poll conducted on the Iraqi public revealed that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction and 77% claimed it was worth ousting Saddam Hussein.[375]"
Both of these statistics are supported by the source but they are both from January '06. The source presents them amongst other data for the same questions from various other dates including more recent dates. The source doesn't give any greater prominence to these dates. I can't see any rationale for using them in preference to the most recent data provided by the source 52% and 61% respectively. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the page to the most recent stats as above, although they are still only from 2006. This [1] suggests by 2008 public support, in Iraq, for the initial invasion had fallen further, though an even more recent source would be good. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
International Law
The German version of this article describes the war as being a violation of international law in the very first lead sentence("Der Irakkrieg ...war eine völkerrechtswidrige Invasion"). Should the English article do the same, or is this not a neutral description? SomePseudonym (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the German article is properly sourced, you could use those same sources and see how people receive it. I'd be curious to see the text and sources myself. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Most wars can be described as illegal, and most wars including the Iraq War can be described as legal, it's all very subjective. War is an inherently extralegal process, so even the notion of an "illegal war" is not NPOV because declaring something illegal depends on a politicized process, primarily the UN security council voting that a war was illegal. The UN Security Council has not voted the Iraq War illegal, and is unlikely to do so, because of the weight of a US vote against such a measure. Basically whether one regards a war to be illegal just means that one was politically opposed to a war. Many Germans opposed the Iraq War so it's not surprising that the German article is anti-war and consequently declares it to be an illegal war. The biggest factor in whether a war is illegal is whether the war is engaged in "self-defense" which is an extraordinarily subjective notion. American supporters of the Iraq War would assert that the war was fought as a result of the 9/11 attacks which forced the US to invade the Arab middle east in order to occupy bases there from which it could engage jihadist forces directly. Even anti-war US political figures such as John Kerry describe the war in terms of being motivated by a post 9/11 desire to aggressively project US military force into the Arab middle east without the constraints that US bases in Saudi Arabia were under (and the whole WMD issue was a contrivance to justify it to US allies). Whether this counts as self defense depends on whether one regards projecting US force into and against the Arab middle east region as an effective, let alone essential, strategy, which is a highly partisan question. Walterego (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Video: Cheney describes the invasion, war, and aftermath
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I
Should a summary of that video be included in the article? 2601:283:4403:8012:9C68:B561:A144:9317 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
why are my contributions being removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John O Callaghan2 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
why are my contributions being removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John O Callaghan2 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oil
- "There are many problems with this line in the lead. It is unsourced. It is vague (who are the "many", specifically? Scholars? World leaders? The public?) More fundamentally, it is not supported by ANYTHING in the body except Nelson Mandela" —TTAAC
@TheTimesAreAChanging: This I cannot disagree with. Perhaps someone with enough care and time can write something sourced about it. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Lancet survey
Given the near-universal agreement by government bodies and scientific observers that it's an inaccurate study, why is it till listed in the casualty box? The other estimates are much closer to each other and have much more solid support by various professionals. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- 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 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 New Zealand articles
- High-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists