This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
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.
Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done:
Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources
More detail about humanitarian projects throughout the conflict by U.S. troops and private organizations.
Remove as much bias as possible and site sources. One example is in the 5th paragraph from the top which starts with "Some U.S. officials accused..." Which officials? Also, the report cited at the end of that sentence is intended to dispel the myth of Iraq's direct connection (the "smoking gun") to Al-Qaida, but the sentence does not address that the report confirms direct connections between Saddam's regime to other terrorist groups and its perception of the West (namely, America) as its enemy. The appearance of bias comes from the omission of the proven fact that the Hussein regime was directly connected to terrorist groups who viewed America as an enemy. (This can be read in the cited source.) This entire Wiki entry comes off as argumentative (arguing that this was a war of agression by Western powers against Iraq) and not as unbiased. This is just one glaring example. Please remove this bias or remove this entry. Thanks.
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.
A news item involving Iraq War was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 September 2010.
Wikipedia
Occupation not a war
Didn't the war end after the Iraqi army was defeated? I thought the definition of a war was when 2 or more armies fight, not when one country occupies another. For reference, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War which includes the dates of invasion and final day of occupation whilst also explaining when large-scale fighting ended. By this basis the dates would include March 2003-to present with an explanation that Iraq was defeated in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.43.208 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coalition vs insurgents. There...two sides. We done? Learn what a war really is please before starting this kind of discussion. Thank you. Diefgross (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coalition vs insurgents aren't two sides. You can't lump the insurgents all in one group because they were never unified, and often fought each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.34.84 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the general view of society is exactly what dictates this matter. If the general societal perception was that this is an "occupation, not a war", then both our sources and our article would undoubtedly reflect this. However, such theoreticals, and this debate, for that matter, are irrelevant because policy-wise, our article reflects reliable sources. SwarmX02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
War of aggression
Now when it is becoming more and more obvious that this invasion was indeed illegal act, not authorised by UN and not supported by majority of states, its quite justifiable to consider listing this war as an act of unjustified aggression to a state because of ideology/resources/political situation/...(yet to be decided).
I know that most of us don't like the idea that even first world countries are still capable of such aggression, but, we are wikipedians, we should discuss this neutrally.
So, I say this was a war of aggression.
Why: justifying with no credible proof, unauthorised by UN and possible profitable gains from occupation(natural resources, greater control of the region).
History has shown that practically all wars can be considered "wars of aggression" where there is some form of economic gain or potential political advantage...that usually leads to an economic gain. Otherwise, it's not worth "fighting" over, whether it be by combatants or material support. It's not the wikipedians' jobs to pass any form of partial judgement or act as a court. All we do is try to update the facts reported by "reputable" sources as a "neutral" party. Until someone is "convicted" for this "illegal act", there is no justification in saying that it is or not. Now if next year some countries unite and take over the UN and convict the USA and all participants of the invasion of "illegal warring", then you can list all the details.
Rasmasyean (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
: Not to mention that there was justification for the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein's sons were buying nuclear materials from Saudi Arabia, among other violations of the embargo on Iraq.--MrEchelon(O.oI'm real bad!)16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
: Not to mention that there were a lot of weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq. Come on, I know that you wrote this statement in the carnival period, but we have christmas in the meantime. --79.210.174.83 (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should this actually be part of the war on terror?
The Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation ran concurrently with the war in Afghanistan, but an argument could be made that this is actually an extension of the Gulf War rather than a separate war in and of itself.
Looking at the timeline, the chain of events took place in an unbroken sequence, from the invasion of Kuwait to Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to the UN sanctions and weapons inspections, to the US and UK enforcement of the No Fly Zone, to repeated military attacks against Iraq in response to various violations by the Hussein regime, to the UN's reinstatement of the weapons inspections, to the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. That, I think, is the chain of events which historians will tie together. It's been well established that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, although many people were confused on that point at the time of the 2003 invasion.
I'm not interested in a political debate about whether the 2003 invasion was correct or justified. Rather, I'm interested in looking at the Iraq War within its correct context, and that context leads me to conclude that this is a war which began with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and will be ending this year with the full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, spanning 21 years and four Presidents.
It probably should be listed as a part of the War on Terror, as the U.S. authorities stated that denying Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists was one of their goals for invading in 2003. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request from , 1 November 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Iraq had lost $8,800,000,000 in the" to "Iraq had lost $8.8 billion in the" because it differs in format from the rest of the article and because it is misleading in terms of amount, as 8,800,000,000 seems larger than 8.8 billion.
Please correct the casualty estimates table for two incorrectly described sources:
"Associated Press 133,280 violent deaths.
Health Ministry death certificates plus AP estimate of casualties for 2003–2005. April 2009
Iraq Body Count 113,494 – 122,483 violent civilian deaths.
Reported in English-language media only.
(including new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs) October 2010"
The correct AP number is 110,600. The figure of 133,280 is erroneous "original research" and never appears in AP. The missing early years were 2003-2004, not 2003-2005, and the AP figure of 110,600 already includes the AP estimate for those years.
The IBC number given here of 113,494-122,483 is also a weird kind of "original research" that never appears in IBC. It seems to be using some undetermined IBC figure from its database at some point in time and adding on top a separate estimate they made of likely additions that will come from the Wikileaks war logs material. The latter is a projection of what they think will ultimately added, which is separate from the database of recorded deaths (and which now already includes some Wikileaks-sourced deaths). Moreover, the statement here "reported in English-language media only" is false. The IBC website says: "Deaths in the database are derived from a comprehensive survey of commercial media and NGO-based reports, along with official records that have been released into the public sphere. Reports range from specific, incident based accounts to figures from hospitals, morgues, and other documentary data-gathering agencies."
The current Casualties of the Iraq War page has these sources listed appropriately, and it would be simple enough to just copy them from that table to this one to correct the OR and error problems here:
Associated Press 110,600 deaths March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project 103,536 — 113,125 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Over 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1] March 2003 to October 2011
It would also be good to add the Wikileaks to the table, again this could just be copied from the table on the Casualties page (with proper formatting of course):
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][2][3][4] 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[5][6] January 2004 to December 2009
Today the Iraq War officially was ended by President Obama. I would like to ask someone who is allowed to edit this article to be able to show that the war stopped today, December 14, 2011. Right now it shows the day it started to the present. I'd appreciate if someone could fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebowl99 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last troops are coming home within days, according to this news article. I would say that when the last troop leaves would be the "official" end of the war. -- Luke(Talk)02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. If an arsonist sets a house on fire and walks away, does that fire stop burning the moment he's out of there? Remember that this article said the Iraq War ended in August 2010 not too long ago, but that date changed. This date will probably change too. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the war may be over for the US military but fighting continues with insurgents attacking the Iraqi security forces who were part of the Coalition forces for the last 9 years. Diefgross (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. That is called post iraq war conflict. The Iraq war entitles the USA involvement. USA involvement is over. You can now create a separate article called post iraq war violence. THe Vietnam war ended on 30 April 1945, even though the South Vietnamese military was still active. Sopher99 (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And where does it say that the Iraq war entitles the USA involvement? The war evolved since 2003. In any case the USA involvement still continues in the form of 5,000 US private security advisors and contractors, most of them under contract with the US government and military. And your example of the Vietnam war is actually proof of this war still continuing, because the US military involvement in Vietnam ended with the troop withdrawal in 1973, but the war itself ended in 1975 when the South Vietnam government was defeated and the last of the US advisors fled. Also, read [1] closely what Obama said. He said and I quote After nine years, the war will be over in the next few days "not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. So the president himself confirms its still on. This kind of major change to the article requires a discussion first before making the edit. So please hold on until the situation is more clear. Thank you. Diefgross (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting your personal opinions into the article is tendentious and disruptive. We work with reliable sources here, the overwhelming majority of which clearly support the claim that the war is over. As of today (not yesterday), the US Secretary of Defense has officially declared the war over. SwarmX20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Vietnam War ended in 1975, not 1945. Major U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War ended in 1973, although the war continued between North and South Vietnam for two more years, coming to an end in 1975. If foreign involvement constitutes the Iraq War, then the Iraq War is still going on as foreign troops remain in the country as of 15 December 2011. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who were the major role players of the war? The United States and current Iraqi government. Yes, the combat role for the United States is over, but Iraq itself should determine the date for war is over.
Wikipedia reflects what WP:RELIABLE sources say. The US President and members of the US governments are Primary sources, and reflect only the opinion of the US government. For older wars, we would reflect what reliable historians said. This is a current event, so we need to decide what the reliable sources for it are, while avoiding WP:RECENTISM. Reliable independent military and political analysts would probably be the best options. In my opinion, avoid what journalists are saying, they aren't qualified to say if a war is over or not. Hohum (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several diverse News sources say the war is over. If that is not enough then I guess WWII isn't over, and neither is the US Civil War or the Revolutionary War or the Umma/Lagash War because it is probably possible to find people out in the world who still have a bone to pick for any of these conflicts.Jarwulf (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last American troops left today Article. Can we say today (December 18) is the end date of the war, since there the multi-national force listed as a belligerent isn't there anymore? Absolutezero273 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like reliable Historians agree that WWII, US Civil War and Revolutionary War are over. This conflict is recent, so historians haven't written about the end of it yet. News sources simply aren't competent to judge the end of a war. I have already suggested who is competent. Please stop trying to draw your own conclusions from what you think is evidence - that is WP:OR. Hohum (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's based on what several independent sources say. The conflict now is with changed actors and motivations. You're asking for a double standard anyway. Since when does wikipedia wait for historians to write a textbook about everything it posts? The Iraq 'war' could be reduced to Achmed the lone jihadist running a website about waging war against the infidel and some here would still would still want to list it as ongoing. Jarwulf (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News sources are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. That doesn't change just because the history textbooks haven't been written yet. Jarwulf is right in that you're asking for a double standard—you're claiming that our using news sources is WP:OR, while trying to prevent us from doing so based on your own personal opinions. SwarmX19:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything like "wait for historians". Read what I said more carefully - I have even bolded the text. Also try to WP:AGF. Journalists' opinions mean squat regarding the end of wars. News services would be reliable about something like "US forces have withdrawn" as that is simple reporting without interpretation. Deciding a war is over is the domain of military and political analysts. They may say it is - and will likely be giving their expert opinion in reliable sources right now. Hohum (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is to reflect what reliable sources say, not conduct original research and interpretation. Iraq's own army is now continuing where the multinational force left - it's up to reliable sources to decide if this means the war is over or continuing with less belligerents. Hohum (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And they currently all appear to reflect that the war is over. If this changes, then by all means our article will follow. SwarmX19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Advisors", are we required to be so naive?
All the news reports say that "advisor" troops will stay behind, along with troops to defend the "embassy". How naive is wikipedia required to be?108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
"The only US military presence left in Iraq now is 157 soldiers responsible for training at the US embassy, as well as a small contingent of marines protecting the diplomatic mission." BBC. What do you mean by naive? That information should be left in the article. Unless you want to imply that 157 embassy military personnel are troops of war? --Pudeo'13:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too American Focus
The vast majority of this article is about interactions with America & Cooalition troops. But the more interesting thing is what is happening in Iraq itself. Who are the various factions and what are their motives and strengths? Most importantly, what really is the end game becoming? A flowering of peace and goodwill, or the rise of Sadam II? Tuntable (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions a lot of different english names for this conflict, but doesn't state any name in arabic given by the enemy forces. In other war articles WP gives names in different languages in order to give names from all sides involved. Why not in the introduction of this article as well? --217.50.59.45 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
First of all, saying the War ended on December 15, is incorrect, because although US involvement may be over (which it isn't really, because of all the contractors), the war still continues between Iraqi government and insurgents. Also, the claim that the insurgency is currently "small-scale" is POV, because there is no clear definition for this, and it seems to have only been framed in such words to make the war seem more successful for US, which is POV. In reality, although the violence decreased, the insurgency is by no means small scale and with at least 3,777 deaths this year [2] it is still one of the most violent conflicts on earth. Most ongoing conflicts, which have articles on wikipedia, have nowhere near 3,777 deaths a year, or even in total, and we don't label them as finished.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a conflict, but this article is about the war between Iraq and the coalition forces. We don't say the Seven Days War is ongoing because there is still violence between Israel and pro-Palestenian forces. Czolgolz (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the current insurgency is not that simple continuation of the Iraq War. There are factions that fight against each other besides the Iraqi government (which in turn is civil war). So besides anti-government insurgency, there is Shia vs. Sunni fighting. Indeed, most of the suicide bombings are against civilians that are of different group. There might be suicide bombers in Iraq in 2020, but that doesn't mean this article should cover the period up to that. --Pudeo'14:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, 4000 dead a year is a large scale conflict by UN standards. The comparison with Six Days War is completely false, since not so many people die as a cause of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Czolgolz puts it incredibly well—"violent conflict" (in this case, an insurgency) ≠ "war" necessarily. The continuing of violence alone does not justify the claim that the Iraq War is still ongoing. I can not say it enough (literally, because people have a hearing problem): we work with reliable sources on Wikipedia, and our best bet 100% of the time is to stick firmly to the sources (which is what we're doing). Nothing terribly wrong with discussing it here, but those inclined to do so need to understand that. SwarmX18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done CTJF83 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom (2003–11)
