Talk:Iraq War

Restructuring needed

Per the above discussion, Iraqi insurgency (2003–11) has been moved to Iraq War (2003–11) which means it's time to implement the other changes we agreed on. Charles Essie (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Greyshark09, Darouet, and Shhhhwwww!!: I could use your help. Charles Essie (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, too busy juggling five articles. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand. I really need help though. There's a ton of work that needs to be done and there's no way I can do it all on my own. What should I do? Charles Essie (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Try WP:MILITARY. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: Well done. Will get to it later on... Busy in real life...GreyShark (dibra) 17:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Chilcot Inquiry

In July 2016 the United Kingdom released the Chilcot Inquiry. Would expect there would be a little bit of info added to this article referring to that report. --Everett (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea. For instance the material on civilian casualties is fascinating - e.g. showing that multiple scientific advisories to the British government, from different ministries, concluded that the Lancet casualty reports were sound in methodology, even as British officials like Blair publicly condemned the Lancet findings. -Darouet (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the inquiry to the "Criticism" section, feel free to add more. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: What is the subject of this article?

After the end of foreign combat operations in Iraq, there were numerous discussions on this talk page as to whether the article should reflect the "conclusion" of the "Iraq War" or whether it should treat the conflict as "ongoing" past that point. The prevailing viewpoint was that, according to reliable sources, the terminology "Iraq War" referred to the 2003-2011 multinational, US-led military conflict within Iraq. In other words, while various conflicts continue to this day, "the Iraq War" had ended.

Recently, a handful of editors reached a questionable local "consensus" to fundamentally change the subject of the article; Iraq War would now be an umbrella article for all conflict in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. I've done some research and have come to the conclusion that the reliable sources still do not reflect the notion that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, and thus the article should not do so. Sources discussing the ongoing conflict no longer use the terminology "Iraq War", and sources that do use the term are specifically referring to the concluded multinational conflict of 2003-2011. I can't find anything that indicates that "Iraq War" should refer to all conflict since 2003, nor do I think the input in the last discussion was remotely enough to change the fundamental subject of a prominent and controversial article. It should require a stronger consensus, with more input, and hard evidence, to make such a drastic change.

We should change it back to the previous stance, based on the fact that it was supported by reliable sources, or we should have a stronger consensus to the contrary. Swarm ♠ 22:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Swarm: RfC's must be neutral and concise. The language of your good-faith comment above casts aspersions on the the mere "handful" of editors working here to reach a "questionable" consensus, though this consensus is the same as that arrived at repeatedly by many editors since 2011: that the Iraq war is ongoing. I would encourage you to refactor the RfC and write it neutrally: is the Iraq War ongoing or did it end in 2011?

I nevertheless think that your request to open this to the wider community is legitimate and important. It would be helpful, perhaps in a vote comment below, if you would provide a list of the sources you describe so that I and others can consider them when making a decision. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I will gladly go into more detail as to why I support the viewpoint I do, but as I'm short on time right now I will simply address your procedural complaint: I made the RFC statement as neutral and concise as possible whilst stating my observational take on the situation. Swarm ♠ 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Repeated discussions on this talk page since 2011 have resulted in the same consensus above: that the Iraq war is ongoing, and that 2011 marks a change in the phase of that war, but not the end of it. Note this masterful commentary on this talk page from September 2011 in which everyone, including you Swarm, concluded that the war was ongoing and that the announcement of its end by President Obama meant nothing for the war's reality. Or this discussion from September 2014 where the great majority of editors conclude the same (those who disagreed mostly wrote about article length). The latest discussion here of overall content from November 2014 includes the present, ongoing conflict within the war. The consensus reached here, this very month, concluded that the war is ongoing, and that this article should review all phases of the war, including post-2011. In summary every consensus so far has agreed that the "Iraq War" did not end in 2011 and is ongoing now. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, let me reply to your references of the endless discussions regarding this matter. Firstly, my comment you mentioned predates the withdrawal of foreign troops and is thus utterly moot. The reliable sources changed after that point, and after the sources changed, my position did as well. The point that the "Iraq War" is ongoing has indeed been argued since 2011 for obvious reasons. Conflicts did not end with the withdrawal of foreign troops. Why, then, has the article represented the position that it ended in 2011 this entire time? The answer is simple. The criterion for the inclusion of all content on Wikipedia is verifiability, based on reliable sources. The reliable sources available did, and still do, reflect my aforementioned point that the term "Iraq War" academically, culturally, and popularly, refers specifically to the US-led foreign intervention between 2003-2011. No one argues that armed conflicts ceased after this time period. However, according to the available sources to which we are indebatably bound, the term "Iraq War" refers to a specific conflict in Iraq that has concluded. If I am wrong, anyone is free to present sources that speak for themselves. Both arguments are understandable. But on a project that errs on the side of sources, the argument that "the Iraq War" encompasses all conflicts in Iraq and is ongoing has simply never been able to be substantiated with reliable sources. I present Exhibit A, one of the most obvious sources to consult with. Another, albeit professional, encyclopedia: Britannica's article on "Iraq War" specifically discusses the 2003-2011 conflict.[1] It lends absolutely no validation to the notion that the term "Iraq War" is used outside of this conflict. Anyone can do a Google search or Google News search. This is most obvious way to seek out sources. Conducting such a search does not reveal any implication that the "Iraq War" is ongoing and that the term does not refer to the 2003-2011 conflict. All the sources I can find seem to agree with the point I'm making. The argument that "the Iraq War" never ended and is ongoing is manufactured by individual opinions. These opinions are understandable from a logical perspective, but do not justify redefining the phrase "Iraq War". They are not supported by reliable sources, period. And again, if I am wrong, I invite all to present their sources, because that is the actual content guideline in play here. Swarm ♠ 05:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• What about this reliable source? [2] It says, that the U.S. lead coalition will provide air support in the battle to retake Fallujah. How is this not considered part of the Iraq war? -- Raphael1 16:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Here is another source proving that the U.S. is still fighting in Iraq: U.S.-led coalition troops seen near front line in new Iraq offensive -- Raphael1 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• And another one: Looming Iraq battle draws in 200 more U.S. troops Are you still convinced, that U.S. engagement in the Iraq war is over? -- Raphael1 16:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• As Pincrete explains below, you've completely and utterly ignored my point. I even specifically said that no one is arguing that the conflicts are over. The point is that the ongoing conflicts are not considered to be part of the "Iraq War", which, based on reliable sources, refers to the 2003-2011 conflict. Swarm ♠ 18:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment , Raphael1 you are asking and answering completely the wrong question. None of these sources immediately above refer to 'Iraq War'. The question is not whether US or other troops continue to be militarily engaged in 2016 in, and around, Iraq. The question is what do RS, academic works and quality news sources mean when the say 'Iraq war', do they think the war finished around yearX, and what name do they give to any subsequent conflict which might be briefly covered as "aftermath" in this article. I am not going to 'vote' since I don't know enough, though my impression is that UK sources do not use this term for present conflict. Attempting to construct an argument based on 'fighting is still happening, so the Iraq War is ongoing', is pure WP:OR. Looking at the sources offered in previous discussions, I form the impression that, at the very, very least, it is a matter of cosiderable dispute whether the term applies beyond year X. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• August 1st, still waiting on any reliable sources to support the change to "Iraq War ongoing". The way it was before was reliably sourced. Swarm ♠ 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Agree - based on Swarm's research, I can't argue with the logic that "the term "Iraq War" academically, culturally, and popularly, refers specifically to the US-led foreign intervention between 2003-2011." I can't see using Iraq War based on the sources in the same way as The Troubles are used, as the current sources on the conflict of Iraq no longer refer to an "Iraq War" as ongoing - terms like "conflict" are used instead, not a specific title. It is my personal assumption the media made this distinction because there seemed a time when a new Iraqi government was functioning, which is typically assumed to herald a successful conclusion to a civil war or country-wide conflict, at least in the media's view. So in short, I think including the Iraq War as one time period in the larger timeline of "conflict in Iraq" works fine, is accurate based on sources, and is clear to readers. Yvarta (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree on US-led coalition military campaign of 2003-2011 being the "Iraq War", as a proper noun, per WP:COMMONNAME, per sources. I agree that may not be wholly precise, but my opinion doesn't matter more than any other editor's. We can certainly devote a couple paragraphs on the current conflicts in an "Aftermath"-like section, and list these in the infobox "Results", but that's only to better frame the current subject, not "improve" the definition of the Iraq War on a quest for WP:TRUTH. Full details of those conflicts belong in other articles. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree I don't understand your point. How do you call the ongoing U.S. military engagement in Iraq? "Iraq peace"? (It's not a conflict, if you try to drop MK80 bombs to solve it.) --Raphael1 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There was weapons of mass destruction

The government and John Howard claimed there was, and government claims are treated as fact in other pages so can we have the same standard applied here. Gov said therefore its true and therefor WMD existed in iraq!--A12bc34be5 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to automatically treat any claim made by any government as true. We work with reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)