| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2003 invasion of Iraq article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 90 days
 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This 
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
 | 2003 invasion of Iraq is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 20, 2008. | |||||||||
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | On 2007-12-12, 2003 invasion of Iraq was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
 | On 30 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to United States invasion of Iraq. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Really, France, Sweden? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, surely we only label countries as supporting in cases when they provide material assistance to one side of a conflict? I get that these countries have publicly opposed the invasion, but I'm skeptical you could find many reliable sources stating all of those countries outright supporting Iraq in this war. Most of the listed countries had absolutely abysmal relations with Iraq in 2003.
Fanatizka (
talk) 00:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Oppoed to" and supporting are not the same thing.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Slatersteven Agreed that it shouldn't be listed as "support." The question is whether it could merit inclusion in the article if simply listed as opposed invasion? Could be helpful for readers to quickly glean some information on the diplomatic situation at the time.
Fanatizka (
talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not in the infobox. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Slatersteven Agreed that it shouldn't be listed as "support." The question is whether it could merit inclusion in the article if simply listed as opposed invasion? Could be helpful for readers to quickly glean some information on the diplomatic situation at the time.
Fanatizka (
talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Oppoed to" and supporting are not the same thing.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree🤣🤣🤣 Parham wiki ( talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Back again, edit warred back in. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Russia should stay, the rest should be removed. Parham wiki ( talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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 discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
2003 invasion of Iraq → United States invasion of Iraq – Per WP:PRECISE. Just like with the United States invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion was US-led and was also launched to achieve U.S. goals (overthrowing Saddam Hussein). WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Broadly support. I think the reasoning here makes sense. Either "United States invasion of Iraq," "U.S. invasion of Iraq" or (as it is on French Wikipedia) "2003 United States invasion of Iraq." Any of these, I think, are better than just saying "2003 invasion" without mentioning the main country doing the invading.
- XTheBedrockX ( talk) 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The nom does not give a reason why the proposal is an improvement.
Srnec (
talk) 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- People didn’t accept the United States invasion of Afghanistan page to be named 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, wuth valid reasons. Why should we keep 2003 invasion of Iraq the way it is right now? Check the talk page of us invasion of afghanistan, the last section and see why. I first wanted to change to 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, but I’ve changed my mind. WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- See my comments below, but i think your arguments at the talk page about the Afghan invasion case were the better ones, so I encourage you to change your mind back! hamiltonstone ( talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- comment - complex but inclined to oppose. The article needs a title that is most appropriate for a global audience. The invasion was a major political issue, at the time and historically, in other countries that were invasion participants, particularly the UK and Australia. To add "US" to the title would be an inaccurate reflection of their involvement. It also appears the change is unnecessary in terms of the concision element of the policy. FWIW, i think the title of the Afhganistan invasion article is unwise. Some countries - Afghanistan is a good example, see
Invasions of Afghanistan - experience multiple invasions and wars and a good approach to titles of articles would be one that is likely to provide a unique identifier. The obvious one is to use a year, not a country. I think
United States invasion of Afghanistan is the title that needs to change.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 09:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess that on some RMs, only people who oppose your choice are commenting on those. WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 11:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. If it had to be changed, it would be
United States–led invasion of Iraq, as the proposed title would suggest only the USA was involved. But obviously we shouldn't change per
WP:DONTFIXIT. It could also be confused with
American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021), and
War in Iraq (2013–2017).
90.254.30.143 (
talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to propose a
WP:SNOWCLOSE.
90.254.30.143 (
talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the outcome is quite clear (at best no consences). If neither XTheBedrockX nor WikipedianRevolutionary object, I could close this or we could just leave it as it is due to be closed. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to propose a
WP:SNOWCLOSE.
90.254.30.143 (
talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The proposed title change, in my opinion, better portrays the nature and principal involvement of the United States in the events surrounding the 2003 Iraq invasion. Mikeyspeed7 ( talk) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Arguably any argument for this change is equally an argument to change the others. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that the Nom misconstrues WP:PRECISION. The invasion was by a coalition, albeit US led, so the proposal is not more precise. It is sufficiently precise give that (per WP:AT) concision is generally the primary consideration. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
The page is currently over at Draft:Outline of the Iraq War, for anyone else interested in contributing to this. XTheBedrockX ( talk) 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
www.npr.org/2023/03/29/1165581083
Senate votes to repeal unwarranted 2003 War authorization...
encyclopedia sup/m e.o r g/iraqtragedy /=re 102.64.169.160 ( talk) 11:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What do you want us to do? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I did not post above, but how come war criminals like George Bush jr, Dickey Cheney, Toni Blair are free...
They are guilty of war crimes at least in some jurisdictions...
aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.61.124 ( talk) 12:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What do you expect us to do? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.
It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 ( talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Problem is, do any RS think this?
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- who is rs CalfRaiser150 ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
-
wp:rs, read it please, ohh and
wp:or.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Youtube video of the Telegraph is not reliable?
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly Bush said this and clearly it is relevant, so please help me add it instead of just breaking down. I'm new to wikipedia.
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is you saying it was not a slip up, and that he thinks this, the source does not say that.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you watched the clip? he says 'Iraq too'. That is the admission. CalfRaiser150 ( talk) 13:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is you saying it was not a slip up, and that he thinks this, the source does not say that.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly Bush said this and clearly it is relevant, so please help me add it instead of just breaking down. I'm new to wikipedia.
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Youtube video of the Telegraph is not reliable?
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
But I have raised my objections time for others to chip in. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If there is something to be made of this, then it will be made in sources. Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- B-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Mid-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- B-Class Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- B-Class Iraq articles
- Top-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Articles linked from high traffic sites
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2003 invasion of Iraq article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 90 days
|
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
| This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 2003 invasion of Iraq is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
| A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 20, 2008. | |||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
| On 2007-12-12, 2003 invasion of Iraq was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
| On 30 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to United States invasion of Iraq. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Really, France, Sweden? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, surely we only label countries as supporting in cases when they provide material assistance to one side of a conflict? I get that these countries have publicly opposed the invasion, but I'm skeptical you could find many reliable sources stating all of those countries outright supporting Iraq in this war. Most of the listed countries had absolutely abysmal relations with Iraq in 2003.
Fanatizka (
talk) 00:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Oppoed to" and supporting are not the same thing.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Slatersteven Agreed that it shouldn't be listed as "support." The question is whether it could merit inclusion in the article if simply listed as opposed invasion? Could be helpful for readers to quickly glean some information on the diplomatic situation at the time.
Fanatizka (
talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not in the infobox. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- @
Slatersteven Agreed that it shouldn't be listed as "support." The question is whether it could merit inclusion in the article if simply listed as opposed invasion? Could be helpful for readers to quickly glean some information on the diplomatic situation at the time.
Fanatizka (
talk) 15:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- "Oppoed to" and supporting are not the same thing.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree🤣🤣🤣 Parham wiki ( talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Back again, edit warred back in. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Russia should stay, the rest should be removed. Parham wiki ( talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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 discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
2003 invasion of Iraq → United States invasion of Iraq – Per WP:PRECISE. Just like with the United States invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion was US-led and was also launched to achieve U.S. goals (overthrowing Saddam Hussein). WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Broadly support. I think the reasoning here makes sense. Either "United States invasion of Iraq," "U.S. invasion of Iraq" or (as it is on French Wikipedia) "2003 United States invasion of Iraq." Any of these, I think, are better than just saying "2003 invasion" without mentioning the main country doing the invading.
- XTheBedrockX ( talk) 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The nom does not give a reason why the proposal is an improvement.
Srnec (
talk) 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- People didn’t accept the United States invasion of Afghanistan page to be named 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, wuth valid reasons. Why should we keep 2003 invasion of Iraq the way it is right now? Check the talk page of us invasion of afghanistan, the last section and see why. I first wanted to change to 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, but I’ve changed my mind. WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- See my comments below, but i think your arguments at the talk page about the Afghan invasion case were the better ones, so I encourage you to change your mind back! hamiltonstone ( talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- comment - complex but inclined to oppose. The article needs a title that is most appropriate for a global audience. The invasion was a major political issue, at the time and historically, in other countries that were invasion participants, particularly the UK and Australia. To add "US" to the title would be an inaccurate reflection of their involvement. It also appears the change is unnecessary in terms of the concision element of the policy. FWIW, i think the title of the Afhganistan invasion article is unwise. Some countries - Afghanistan is a good example, see
Invasions of Afghanistan - experience multiple invasions and wars and a good approach to titles of articles would be one that is likely to provide a unique identifier. The obvious one is to use a year, not a country. I think
United States invasion of Afghanistan is the title that needs to change.
hamiltonstone (
talk) 09:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess that on some RMs, only people who oppose your choice are commenting on those. WikipedianRevolutionary ( talk) 11:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per
WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. If it had to be changed, it would be
United States–led invasion of Iraq, as the proposed title would suggest only the USA was involved. But obviously we shouldn't change per
WP:DONTFIXIT. It could also be confused with
American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021), and
War in Iraq (2013–2017).
90.254.30.143 (
talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to propose a
WP:SNOWCLOSE.
90.254.30.143 (
talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the outcome is quite clear (at best no consences). If neither XTheBedrockX nor WikipedianRevolutionary object, I could close this or we could just leave it as it is due to be closed. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to propose a
WP:SNOWCLOSE.
90.254.30.143 (
talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The proposed title change, in my opinion, better portrays the nature and principal involvement of the United States in the events surrounding the 2003 Iraq invasion. Mikeyspeed7 ( talk) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Arguably any argument for this change is equally an argument to change the others. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that the Nom misconstrues WP:PRECISION. The invasion was by a coalition, albeit US led, so the proposal is not more precise. It is sufficiently precise give that (per WP:AT) concision is generally the primary consideration. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
The page is currently over at Draft:Outline of the Iraq War, for anyone else interested in contributing to this. XTheBedrockX ( talk) 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
www.npr.org/2023/03/29/1165581083
Senate votes to repeal unwarranted 2003 War authorization...
encyclopedia sup/m e.o r g/iraqtragedy /=re 102.64.169.160 ( talk) 11:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What do you want us to do? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I did not post above, but how come war criminals like George Bush jr, Dickey Cheney, Toni Blair are free...
They are guilty of war crimes at least in some jurisdictions...
aljazeera.com/opinions/2011/11/28/kuala-lumpur-tribunal-bush-and-blair-guilty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.61.124 ( talk) 12:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- What do you expect us to do? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.
It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 ( talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Problem is, do any RS think this?
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- who is rs CalfRaiser150 ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
-
wp:rs, read it please, ohh and
wp:or.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Youtube video of the Telegraph is not reliable?
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly Bush said this and clearly it is relevant, so please help me add it instead of just breaking down. I'm new to wikipedia.
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is you saying it was not a slip up, and that he thinks this, the source does not say that.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you watched the clip? he says 'Iraq too'. That is the admission. CalfRaiser150 ( talk) 13:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is you saying it was not a slip up, and that he thinks this, the source does not say that.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly Bush said this and clearly it is relevant, so please help me add it instead of just breaking down. I'm new to wikipedia.
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Youtube video of the Telegraph is not reliable?
CalfRaiser150 (
talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
But I have raised my objections time for others to chip in. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If there is something to be made of this, then it will be made in sources. Cinderella157 ( talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- B-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Mid-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- B-Class Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- B-Class Iraq articles
- Top-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Articles linked from high traffic sites