Jump to content

Talk:1991 Iraqi uprisings

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

Uprising Crush and Coaltition responsability

[edit]

Hello, I saw a TV program from a famous TV channel a few years ago that the coalition has push the people to start the uprisings, promise support, and then in the ceasefire agreement with Iraq has allowed Iraquies troops to use helicopter with weaponry installed. These has been used to crush the uprising in front of the coalitions that did nothing to stop it... and even refused demands from military aircraft pilots to interfere.

Does anyone has more details about that?

It should be very interesting to further develop this part of the story. If I may am wrong, please post information that prove it here. Froggy helps ;-) 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coalition urged the Iraqis to revolt, but it's hard to say if this was the #1 motivating factor behind it. The helicopter usage was granted by the U.S. general in the early days of the uprising because Iraq said it's bridges were bombed. My impression is that the coalition wanted Saddam to be ousted by his own generals rather than a chaotic rebellion, and didn't intervene with air power because it would give more incentive for the army to protect the regime against sectarian rebels. 65.185.190.240 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit Saddam propaganda claims removed

[edit]

The origins of story behind the "centers of rape and torture" was to blame the rebels for destruction of the shrines:

Unlike in al-Najaf, government forces fought back almost immediately in Karbala. One day after their ouster, security forces began shelling the city and attacking suspected rebel concentrations from helicopter gunships. The shrine of Hussein, which served as a rebel base, and the nearby shrine of Abbas, were heavily damaged by artillery fire and by rockets fired from helicopters between March 7 and 11, as were adjacent buildings. Further damage was sustained when Iraqi troops burst into the shrines and fired at the rebels and civilian sympathizers who were inside.

The government later blamed the damage to the shrines in both Karbala and al-Najaf on the rebels:

The saboteurs occupied those shrines, in which they erected gallows and which they converted into centres for the murder, torture and rape of innocent persons. When they realized that their occupation would be short-lived, they wrecked the premises and plundered the contents of these shrines. In this connection, it is noteworthy that preliminary estimates of the damage caused by those saboteurs amount to 20 million Iraqi dinars, quite apart from other damage which cannot be estimated due to the historical and artistic importance and value of the items concerned.[127]

The rebels did use certain Shi'a shrines as their bases, and also as civilian shelters and makeshift clinics. But most of the damage suffered by these monuments was due not to vandalism committed by the rebels but by the mortar and tank fire of loyalist forces.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

There were no "massacres on Christians", "raping of Sunnis", or whatever atrocities against civilians who were not Party officials. --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Shame

Fair use rationale for Image:SCIRI.gif

[edit]

Image:SCIRI.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A main category?

[edit]

There are some sub-articles already: 1991 Uprising in Karbala, Yasilova incident, well, even Three Kings (film) (or Mass graves in Iraq).

Destruction of the Iraqi marshlands definetely needs its own article, it was a huge humanitarian, cultural AND ecological catastrophe. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish autonomy

[edit]

One of the most important results of the 1991 uprisings was that the kurds managed to aquire autonomy in some of the kurdish areas, there should be a mention of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.3.240 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEK Involvement?

[edit]

The article does not mention the role of People's Mujahedin of Iran in assisting Saddam to suppress southern provinces. Could this be added? --Orionpilot (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of PUK.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Flag of PUK.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 13 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

There does seem to be some levels of bias in this article. I am trying to remove those bits without taking away the intended information of the original author, since there is always an unbiased way of stating something. For example, the part claiming that the Free-Iraq radio station was CIA backed. Is it known with certainty that it was backed, or just highly likely? I will continue to do so and hope others will help to clean up the page as well.DaltonCastle (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalton, by Free-Iraq radio do you mean the subdivision of Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Iraq (http://www.rferl.org/section/iraq/157.html)? If so, than yes absolutely there is a long history of CIA involvement. RFE was founded by the State Department and the Office of Policy Coordination. The Office of Policy Coordination would later become part of the CIA. The US Congress remains the sole source of funding for RFE. This is stated plainly on RFE's own website: http://www.rferl.org/info/history/133.html. RFE is what is known within the military as a PSYOP - it is broadcast within certain areas with the goal of destabilizing regimes, encouraging defection, reducing enemy morale and civilian support for unfriendly regimes. Although these are the ultimate policy goals of RFE, that does not mean that they do not also employ actual journalists or that everything that RFE produces is a lie. Accurate, honest reporting can sometimes be more destabilizing than a fleet of bombers. For example, the Washington Post's coverage of the Watergate scandal lead directly to the resignation of then-US president Richard Nixon. At the time of this writing, no foreign military has succeeded in ousting a US president from office (my point being, of course, that honest accurate reporting can sometimes achieve what military force cannot - I am not implying that the Watergate coverage was a PSYOP conducted by a foreign government).

With that said, additional clarification of this information, including extra valid sources, would definitely improve the article and help alleviate concerns of bias re: this topic. I am currently going through and copy-editing this piece starting at the beginning (so I haven't gotten to that point in the piece yet). Although I am focused on just editing for style, I would be happy to investigate and address any additional instances of bias you have found. Is there anything else, other than Radio Free Iraq, that concerns you? Let's work together to improve this article. Thanks! Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Issues

[edit]

I've repaired most of the grammar issues. Can someone just make sure they're okay? 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.40.180 (talk)

There are still numerous significant issues with grammar that require systemic rewrites. I am going to rewrite a good chunk of the article now solely for copy-editing, not content. I'm not sure who you are because you didnt sign in for your comment but I would be happy to work with you to ensure that we keep as much as your language in-article as possible and so I can do my best to help improve things. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page at your earliest convenience. Cheers! Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A word of warning to the wise; item 24 in my talk page illustrates the response I had from this article's minder when I started to do the same. I agree the whole article needs a huge re-write without the bias and with some attention to grammar. Good luck. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. So far, I have only changed the first three graphs. IMO, this piece covers a critical moment in history that is not widely understood or often discussed. Its important that we get this page right. At this time I am simply copy editing and I am not going to address issues of bias in the hopes of accomplishing an improvement in style (from what I've seen, its the talks about content, rather than style, that usually cause bad feelings). I should point out that the work on this article up to this point has been great and the work of talented, dedicated editors. There is always room for a little improvement, and even Hemingway had an editor. Anyway thanks again for the tip wiki-buddy. If you have any feedback for me after I get some more done please feel free to give me a heads up. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2017

[edit]
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: not moved - few sources indicate that it was a "war" and I'm afraid anecdotal evidence is of a lower order than empirical evidence when it comes to naming pages on Wikipedia. DrStrauss talk 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


1991 uprisings in Iraq → Iraqi Civil War (1991) or Iraqi Rebellion of 1991 – The "uprising" has caused more than 10,000+ people to die, which is more than 1000 which means it's supposed to be a war not uprising. My parents used to live in Iraq these times and they even told me that it felt like being in a war more than an uprising. Please can we move it? IbrahimWeed (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No sources are calling it a war, most are calling it an uprising. See WP:COMMONNAME. Personal opinions are not verifiable. EkoGraf (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2017 (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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to cite things on wikipedia but I have a source for my claim of the 300,000 deathtoll.

[edit]

An American official says it in this segment of a 1993 documentary based around the 1991 uprising. Saddam's Killing Fields 1993 She says that the Iraqi government had mentioned the number of south iraqis they had killed to the Kurdish leadership during negotiations. That number is also found in the following summary of the documentary. https://pdfslide.net/documents/saddams-killing-fields-1993-presented-by-michael-wood.html 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.143 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary "Saddam's Killing Fields" appears to be primarily the work of activists and the 300,000 figure is of dubious provenance. In fact, that estimate is far higher than other estimates of all political killings in Iraq during Saddam's entire 24-year tenure, such as the "quarter of a million" cited by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2004. Absent better sourcing, preferably from academic experts, I oppose including such a seemingly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim in the infobox or lede. Furthermore, I noticed that your edit removed the lower-end of the range cited by HRW et al. without explanation. Again, I don't consider that to be an appropriate edit unless you can show that more recent academic sources have concluded that the lower estimates were incorrect. (The 1992 HRW report on the uprising and its aftermath may be dated, but then so is "Saddam's Killing Fields.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WAS NOT A CIVIL WAR!

[edit]

A very few unpopular sources calling this conflict a civil war does not indicate it is such, you don’t see history channels or subjects in school call this conflict a civil war. They always indicate it was just an uprising, by that logic the Islamist uprisings in Syria was a civil war and the 2011 Yemen uprisings was a civil war. Ehoah88880 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“ Oppose No sources are calling it a war, most are calling it an uprising. See WP:COMMONNAME. Personal opinions are not verifiable. EkoGraf (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)” this message in an earlier discussion is kind of contrary Ehoah88880 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2021

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1991 uprisings in Iraq → 1991 Iraqi uprisings – Plural for uprisings in the name is unnecessary as most sources call it the 1991 Iraqi uprising The “Conflict in Country” naming format is wrong in wikipedia, for example we have American Civil War not “Civil War in America”. ArabMan719 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we supposed to change the name of every uprising that happened to “Uprisings”? ArabMan719 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iraq had 2 uprisings, one Kurdish and one Shia uprising Shadow4dark (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to 1991 Iraqi uprisings ArabMan719 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result

[edit]

can someone please tell me what about this wasn't Iraqi government victory?? 2603:6010:1C00:325:8996:E303:6205:2541 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is clearly states that they won not fully specifically against kurds. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? I didnt say to take away the kurdish political victory 2603:6010:1C00:325:8996:E303:6205:2541 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From sources ref 4. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which is why i said to keep the kurdish political victory, the iraqi government won militarily and crushed the kurdish and shia rebellions 2603:6010:1C00:325:8996:E303:6205:2541 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1991_Iraqi_uprisings&oldid=1196259163"