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 are 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.
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.
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.
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.
This article is under review by the Global Perspective Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia by ensuring that articles reflect a global perspective.The Global Perspective Task Force is part of the Countering systemic bias WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the task force and project pages, where you can join and see lists of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 160 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Some of the section of the article are long, meandering and difficult to follow. Subheadings are called for. For example, the Pre-War events section comprises 8 paragraphs with lots of facts. I added some subheadings to this section today but they were removed without real explanation ("not helpful" is not an explanation). --NYCJosh (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans - Why did you revert the following change? (also NYCJosh) Iraq-war Further background on the unreliability and lack of quality intelligence the USA had prior to the Iraq war is entirely relevant to this article and it makes me really question your integrity when you remove stuff like this, as your edit history shows you have a clear agenda. This should stay up. I also find it bizarre you have an issue with someone removing content they don't like here, yet looking at your edit history, you seem to do this constantly? Any political views you don't agree with, you remove without any discussion. If there are any "serious concerns" here, then they relate to the biased, lack of NPOV editing style you are using Apeholder (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Please stop stalking me. Both edits were horrible and should have been reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not run by your rules and there is no rule for an edit being "horrible". It was valid, well sourced and entirely relevant. I'm going to restore it. Apeholder (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Removal of well sourced, relevant information, and of headings much needed to guide the reader, is improper without a solid reason well grounded in WP rules. One editor's personal assessment that such an edit is "horrible" is not a proper reason.--NYCJosh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the edit is useful, since the WMDs story was the main selling point of the war. TFD (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans, NYCJosh, and The Four Deuces: I think that the various subheadings added by Josh in this edit [1] are reasonable, except for the first: "U.S. government searches for a way to attack Iraq immediately following 9/11". The subheading is justified by the text that follows, but it is extraordinarily heavy-handed and thus diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. I think a good litmus test is the "Razor" in Raul's WP:LAWS: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." Arguably the next added subheading "U.S. commences public relations campaign for war" could be better changed to "Public relations campaign," or something similar, though I'm not sure what's best here.
It's important that headings and subheadings not be editorial. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy is "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." Wikipedia articles accept as fact that the earth is round, the moonlanding happened etc. While the heading might have been seen as a matter of opinion at the onset of the war, today it reflects accepted fact. See for example the statement in The Iraq War: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2012), p. 2: "The president's remarks suggest a determination to invade Iraq in search of a pretext for doing so."[2] Even at the time, neutral experts who had access to the material said there was no evidence of WMDs. TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what you've written, but that subheading I've flagged just does not read as encyclopedic. What about "Plans to attack Iraq after 9/11," or something like that? -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: not checked
To-do list for Iraq War:
Done--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Done--
No comments:
Post a Comment