Jump to content

Talk:Iraq War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IanOfNorwich (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 25 July 2015 (→‎Iraqi Opinion Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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
Current status: Former good article nominee


Requested move 1 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is no agreement that other topics challenge this one as primary topic of the name "Iraq War". Cúchullain t/c 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War → Iraq War (2003–2011) – Per consencus reached at Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC) UASR (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of sourced content

The Lancet is an excellent source; and if anybody wishes to remove sourced content, then they need to obtain consensus for it. The fact that Stumink has been reverted by multiple editors suggests no such consensus exists. Both Stumink and myself are at 3rr right now, so I for one won't be reverting further; but hopefully that acts as a spur for discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Stumink's edit, but I do believe that, if the Lancet number is given in the first paragraph, perhaps the PLoS number should be there too. I will think of a way of bringing that into the text. -Darouet (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stumink's current compromise isn't bad. Note that those numbers represent the number of Iraqis who died from violence. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that you wanted to add PLOS but PLOS figure for violent deaths is 132,000 for the entire war so 151,00 for 3/4 years wouldn't be the minimum estimate. Does PLOS mention its violent death figure for 3/4 years? If so I would think that should be added to the lead as the minimum. Stumink (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed the PLoS article recently and will read it in greater detail, but I doubt they'd be able to break down the deaths into 3 or 4 year intervals that way, based on the methodology. That's because they estimate a pre-war mortality rate and a "within-war" mortality rate up until 2011. Also, concerning the numbers themselves, they estimate 460,000 excess deaths (55,000 of those estimated through additional migration calculations) from 2003-2011, over 60% of which are due to violence. That would be 276,000 due to violence, or assuming a constant mortality rate from 2003-2011, 138,000 violent deaths in the first four years. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but that seems like a lot of assumptions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot of assumptions. Actually though, in figure 5 Hagopian et al do break down mortality by year, and it's higher in the first 4 years. Also, they effectively endorse the Lancet results in their discussion, which tries to understand why their own mortality rate is lower. One reason, they surmise, is that reporting error increases as time passes, making more recent studies less reliable. Another reason is that families may be unwilling to report deaths of their own members who fought for the insurgency. Another is that as families break up due to civil strife, it becomes more difficult to interview families neutrally, with remaining families less likely to have lost members. Anyway the list goes on. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella article

I think there should be a new umbrella article about the entire war from 2003 to the present. The discussion is taking place here. Charles Essie (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq_War&oldid=673052961"