Talk:Iraq War

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeIraq 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 1, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Result

who should we put for the victor? Ali36800p (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who do RS say won? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who is RS? Ali36800p (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rs, reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh i don't know then Ali36800p (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali36800p, please revert your changes to the results and stop adding them across various pages. It's disruptive and you're not providing RS. The insurgents didn't overwhelm and defeat the coalition. The Iraqi government didn't "manage to reclaim all land occupied by US and Coalition forces in Iraq". They were not fighting eachother and were allies. 2.100.177.204 (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i never said that the Iraqi government fought US and coalition forces, i'm saying after the US left in 2011, the iraqi government reclaimed all of its land back Ali36800p (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What has that to do with a war that had ended? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it was the result Ali36800p (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It came after the war was over, if not find an RS that says it was the result. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An RS would also be required for the claim that the "Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq". It's simply not true and cannot remain. You also initially added that it was the insurgents and not the government who had reclaimed all occupied land which are opposite results. 2.100.177.204 (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do have plenty of RS's to support the fact that the insurgents did defeat the US and coalition forces: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraqi-ambush-americans-made-mockery-mission-accomplished-2023-03-16/
https://www.quora.com/How-did-untrained-weak-Iraqi-insurgents-hold-their-own-against-their-U-S-for-8-years-despite-being-massively-outnumbered-and-outpaced
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20031708?typeAccessWorkflow=login
https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-failed-strategy-middle-east-losing-iraq-and-gulf
i also have RS's to support the fact that the new iraqi government did reclaim iraq after US and coalition forces left:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Iraq/U-S-withdrawal-and-the-rise-of-the-Islamic-State-in-Iraq-and-the-Levant-ISIL
https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-iraq/
https://www.usip.org/iraq-timeline-2003-war
https://www.justsecurity.org/81556/still-at-war-the-united-states-in-iraq/
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/islamic-state Ali36800p (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but then again, i never said that the Iraqi government fought US and coalition forces, i'm saying after the US left in 2011, the iraqi government reclaimed all of its land back Ali36800p (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh would you look at that, another RS to support the fact that the insurgents did defeat the US and coalition forces: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq Ali36800p (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and another one: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resistindex.htm
look i could give you as many as you want to be honest Ali36800p (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
still hungry for more RS's?
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/world/struggle-for-iraq-insurgents-anti-us-outrage-unites-growing-iraqi-resistance.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-06-fg-counterinsurgency6-story.html Ali36800p (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you posted comes close to supporting the wording that the insurgents "overwhelmed and defeated" the coalition. That's a very strong claim and would have to imply that the insurgents had a total victory against the coalition between 2003 to 2011. The insurgency phase was Inconclusive with no winners. Some of your sources are from 2004. 2.100.177.204 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some even later. Many seem to only talk about them holding their own, or one battle. Per wp:v the source must say (in its words) that " insurgents overwhelmed us forces" or "the US lost to the insurgents". Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you want more sources?? buckle up... Ali36800p (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I want you to quote one source that says (in its words) the insurgents overwhelmed the US. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright i got you, how about i get you an RS that says the US lost against the insurgents, deal? Ali36800p (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about you find a source that supports the edit you want to make [[39]], or accept you do not have one? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, i do Ali36800p (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK then quote the part where is says the US forces were overwhelmed. Until you do I oppose your suggested text, my last word until you provide the quote and the source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here you go:
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/aln/aln_spring04/aln_spring04g.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444.htm
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jul-06-fg-counterinsurgency6-story.html
https://www.gao.gov/assets/a113574.html
All of these sources explicitly mention that US and coalition forces were overwhelmed by the iraqi insurgency and that they failed to defeat the insurgency, if you don't see that, i can quote it for you, and if you still don't see it, then no offense, but you might be blind Ali36800p (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source 1:https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iraq/2005-09-01/how-win-iraq
quote 1: Because they lack a coherent strategy, U.S. forces in Iraq have failed to defeat the insurgency or improve security. Ali36800p (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source 2:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-444.htm
quote 2: These DOD sources indicated that U.S. and coalition forces were overwhelmed Ali36800p (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source 3: https://www.usip.org/publications/2014/10/07/iraq-after-american-withdrawal
quote 3: "after the American withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011, a renewed sectarian and anti-government insurgency swept through the country, causing thousands of casualties." This statement clearly indicates that the US was not successful in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, as the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops. Ali36800p (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i cant quote more if you want Ali36800p (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-war-iraq
quote: "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011." The report goes on to describe how the US-led coalition forces were successful in many battles, but the urban fighting was costly and the insurgency persisted. Ali36800p (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional sources that explicitly mention the fact that the US failed to defeat the Iraqi insurgency:
A report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, which states that "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."
An article by The Guardian, which describes how "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."
A report by the Congressional Research Service, which notes that "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011."
These sources provide further evidence that the US was not successful in defeating the Iraqi insurgency and that the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/19/iraq-war-10-years-on
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf Ali36800p (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources support the claim that "Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq". "Failing to defeat an enemy" is as far from "being defeated" as "defeating an enemy" is from "failing to defeat an enemy".
In any case, per Cinderella's comment below, this is a moot point; "see aftermath" seems to be the best thing to put in the infobox, and the aftermath section describes the full picture quite well. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i mean i dont know what else to say besides the fact that we should probably just include the fact that the US and coalition forces did fail to defeat the insurgency at least if we can't say that the Iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and Coalition forces in Iraq, but no i disagree with the fact that "see aftermath" is the best option, we should just keep as it is, each point has a reliable source to support its claim Ali36800p (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is very clear on this issue; if you disagree, then you should seek to change the MOS.
I have no objection to stating, in the article, that the coalition forces failed to defeat the insurgency, if supported by appropriate citations. However, you may note that the aftermath section discusses, in detail, the continued insurgency after the US withdrew. Whatever change you make, I hope we can all come to a consensus on it and avoid any edit wars. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:MIL, which gives voice to the template documentation in respect to the result parameter, multiple dot points are not supported and acceptable responses against this parameter are limited. In this case, the see Aftermath would appear to be the most appropriate. I have amended the infobox accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali36800p, I see that you have reverted my edit here to reinstate dot-points under the result parameter, contrary to the guidance and the broader consensus of the community. I see that there is already an ANI report made regarding your conduct in relation to the matters discussed herein. I would strongly suggest that you revert your most recent edit that reinstated the dot-points. Your conduct to reinstate the dot-points and continue to edit-war on this matter when presented with a resolution supported by guidance will probably not be considered well. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Cinderella157 made an edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you think we are mistaken in how we interpret this, by all means, discuss it here, but continuing to revert is not likely to end well. If you want different content other than "See aftermath", perhaps we can discuss a compromise. I gather you want it emphasized that the US and coalition did not emerge victorious. Accord to MOS:MIL, our two options are:
  1. Have the infobox read: "See aftermath", per Cinderella157
  2. Omit the "result" part entirely
I am ambivalent between these two. If you think we're misapplying these guidelines, please discuss here. In either case, I don't intend to revert at this time, though if another editor agrees with Cinderella157, I'd encourage them to do so. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont even want to change it anymore, ive already provided RS's to support the fact that the US and coalition forces failed to defeat the insurgents, i have abandoned the idea that "iraqi insurgents overwhelm and defeat US and coalition forces in iraq". so we are good now, we should just keep it the same as it was before, new ideas are unnecessary. Ali36800p (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"new ideas are unnecessary" does not seem to rebut the argument that the Manual of Style clearly states, The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. Do you disagree that the manual of style discommends bullet points in the result section? If not, what is your argument for not following the manual of style? Why does it have to say this in the infobox, and not the article body?
On a related note, you have to actually use the citations inline for the claim you're making in the article. I recommend using the citation tool; it makes things much easier. I haven't reverted you here so you can have the opportunity to add in 2-3 citations that back your claim. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it has to stay in the infobox because infoboxes provide a quick and easy way for readers to access key information about a topic without having to read through an entire article. Infoboxes can help to standardize the presentation of information across different articles, making it easier for readers to compare and contrast different topics. Infoboxes can help to improve the accessibility of information by presenting it in a clear and concise manner. Infoboxes can help to improve the navigability of Wikipedia by providing links to related articles and other resources. Infoboxes can help to reduce the amount of clutter in an article by summarizing key information in a separate section. Infoboxes can help to ensure that important information is not overlooked or buried in an article. Overall, infoboxes are a useful tool for summarizing key information about a particular topic in a standardized and accessible manner.
secondly, i appreciate your patience and respect, and i actually do know how to make citations with easybib.com, my only question is where and how do i insert these citations in the article? Ali36800p (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to try to write the article in the infobox and that The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. Multiple dot points here are clearly contrary to INFOBOXPURPOSE and the guidance at MOS:MIL for an infobox which is exceedingly bloated. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if they have too many points then we could find a way to include some of the information still kept in the infobox, and remove some of the unnecessary points in the infobox, can we agree on that? Ali36800p (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Excellent! It sounds like we're all in agreement on the benefits of infoboxes. Something you said states, way better than I ever did, exactly why I don't think we should have bullet points in the infobox. You wrote, Infoboxes can help to standardize the presentation of information across different articles, making it easier for readers to compare and contrast different topics. That is exactly what MOS:MIL, which discourages bullet points in infoboxes, is meant to do.
Regarding providing a quick way to access key information, I wonder if perhaps I didn't explain what I'm thinking clearly. What is proposed is that the "Result" section will contain the text, "See aftermath". That way the wikilink is embedded in the info box, and they only have to click it to be taken to the aftermath section, where we can polish up the first paragraph to provide a better overview. Would that be acceptable to you?
Finally, I'm glad to hear I've come across as respectful; you seem to really want to improve things, and that's exactly the kind of editor we want! For citations, the way the article is written now, I'd put the citations directly into the infobox, so it'd look like,
  • US and Coalition forces fail to defeat [[Iraqi insurgents|Iraqi insurgents]]<ref>{{cite web...}}</ref><
However, I may be wrong in this; I'm not super familiar with infobox guidelines, so my apologies if I've mislead you! EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you, now i'm just going to go and put my citations in the article, do you need me with anything else? Ali36800p (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the lead, the infobox should be a summary of the body of the article, which, in turn, should be supported by reliable sources. We should be writing the article first and foremost. If this is done, there should be little or no need to add references to the infobox. I did observe that some of the dot-points under the result parameter may reflect territorial changes and might be better placed under that parameter. I am not seeing a consensus to retain the dot-points under the result parameter - particularly when one considers the broader community consensus of MOS:MIL (see also WP:CONLEVEL). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so which points do you want me to remove? Ali36800p (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, thats not what me and EducatedRedneck (talk) agreed on, you know what, i'll just ask him Ali36800p (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should remove all the bullet points in the "result" field, on the following rationale:
  1. It's so busy right now, that readers are unlikely to use it
  2. If we remove specific bullets but not others, we're making a value judgement about which is more important. I'm not comfortable asserting that one outcome is more important than another.
I also think it may be worth adding a summary paragraph to the start of the Aftermath section, basically summarizing the current bullet points. This makes that information more available to readers, and gives them that high-level overview as soon as they click the "Aftermath" link in the infobox. I'll start a new section with a suggested paragraph so we can all workshop it and make sure it's up to our standards before we add it to the article.
In the meantime, I suggest we keep the bullet points temporarily per WP:NODEADLINE, then once we have the new summary paragraph ready, replace the bullets with "See aftermath" and add the summary paragraph in one edit.
Does that sound reasonable to everyone? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why the see aftermath section is better than just keeping the bullet points there like they always were, when you say readers are unlikely to use it, it still matters for people who might be researching about this topic and just need quick results rather than to read an entire new page, me personally, that's my objection, so no i dont think we should start a new section with a suggested paragraph, it's not necessary Ali36800p (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EducatedRedneck, this would be a good course. Ali36800p, an infobox is an at a glance summary. If it is too detailed or too nuanced to be captured with a couple of words, it doesn't belong in the infobox. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and MOS:MIL are both telling us this. A reader researching the subject will be looking for something more substantial than a series of superficial dot-points. The see Aftermath entry tells them where to go to get the information without having to read the whole article. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is usually better. The infobox is not meant to be a mini article but a supplement. The result parameter is just one part of the infobox that makes this whole infobox terribly large. The whole infobox needs to be stripped back. You might look at the discussion at Talk:Syrian civil war about that infobox and the clear consensus there. I don't think that you are likely to change your mind on this but this is the consensus of the broader community expressed through guidelines. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the bullet points in the results are already simple enough Ali36800p (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each one is simple, but there are 12 of them. To use your example, if a reader is trying to get a quick idea of what happened, they're looking for "Coalition victory", "Insurgent victory", or something that length. That many bullet points is way more detail than the infobox is designed for. By linking to "See aftermath", they are told that the result is complicated, and shown where they can learn more if that is the information they seek.
Not all readers will be looking for the result. For those readers, that many bullet points distracts them. On my screen, the "Results" bullet points go almost to the end of the lede; that means that a reader who wants an overview could finish reading the lede before seeing any information on the involved commanders, troop dispositions, etc. By keeping all the bullet points, we're better serving the readers looking for details on the result... at the expense of the readers who look for anything else.
Does that make sense? I think we're all trying to make the article better serve the readers, which is the important part. Now we're just trying to agree on how to do that.
One last important thing to note is what Cinderella157 has been referring to. Even if Cinderella and I were to be convinced by you, there's a consensus at a much higher level on how infoboxes are to be used. You're welcome to go to MOS:MIL to try to change that consensus, but unless that consensus changes, we have to abide by it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:But the current wording in the template also represents consensus of what should be in this infobox. MILMOS actually tells us: "As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles". About changes to MILMOS: how do you think, is the milhist community ready for such discussion?--Oloddin (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILAPP, which is the specific part of MOS:MIL being quoted also states: When in doubt, or when there is no clear consensus, defer to WP:MOS. A bloated infobox is quite inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and part of this bloat arises from using dot-points against the result parameter. I have already pointed to a discussion at Talk:Syrian civil war. The discussion there is quite clearly against bloating of infoboxes and would reasonably be against anything that might tend to increase bloating. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each case is different. The talk on Syrian civil war was about that infobox only. But if to be precise, the result is "withdrawal of U.S. troops" and "continued insurgency". Oloddin (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is also a policy, but the issue above was that the now blocked user was refusing to engage on a policy or guideline level at all. If a consensus emerges here that the bullets should be retained, that is perfectly acceptable. To answer your question About changes to MILMOS: how do you think, is the milhist community ready for such discussion?: I imagine it's perfectly ready, but my impression was that the appropriate place to discuss changing the MOS was on the MOS talk page. Am I mistaken in this? I'm still a new editor, so I'd appreciate being set straight early on, before I can develop bad habits! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and probably that policy should be used more often in cases "standard terms" aren't an improvement.--Oloddin (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result in infobox

The issue is whether to retain the multiple dot-points against the result parameter (per here) or replace these with see Aftermath in accordance with MOS:MIL, which gives voice to the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict regarding the result parameter. Accompanying this is a proposal to amend the aftermath section such that the points presently made against the result parameter are more clearly and explicitly addressed in the aftermath section (see below). Comments in respect to the issue are sought. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified at MilHist here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use See Aftermath per my comments above in the main section of this discussion, in accordance with MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this has been resolved by a block being imposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the end date is December 2011 and by that date "Iraqi government manages to reclaim all land occupied by US and Coalition forces in Iraq", then it's effectively Iraqi victory. --Oloddin (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be strongly against any infobox claim for a US or Iraqi victory; this is an oversimplification. The Iraqi government of 2011 was not the Iraqi government of 2002 in any respect. Anyway, any claims of a victory for either side would have to be supported by a majority of WP:RS. Any attempt to reason out who won from individual factors is WP:OR. Furius (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably you're right. This war simply ended (if December 2011 is correct) with the withdrawal of the U.S. troops. Oloddin (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support US Troops withdrawal, insurgency continues. More happened, but a reader can check the aftermath section for that, if needed. I'd prefer see aftermath, but the withdrawal/continued insurgency seems a suitable compromise if anyone else objects to see aftermath. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both actually can be used.--Oloddin (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then we should just put Inconclusive and then list all the bullet points 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Aftermath seems best given how complex this is. We do not have a clear win-lose situation, nd anything else smacks of weasel words. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make an objection and keep the bullet points 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain how keeping the bullet points does not violate MOS:MIL, or else make a very compelling case for WP:IAR. I think the LONG above conversation has demonstrated that "the bullet points are useful" has not convinced most editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then why dont we just put Inconclusive 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
besides, the new see aftermath section that you just edited doesnt even list any of the past bullet points 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because MOS:MIL clearly states to use "See aftermath" or similar. I think one could argue for "Inconclusive: see aftermath", though I would not personally support it. As for bullet points, then that sounds like a good time for someone to suggest what edits should be made to the Aftermath section to ensure that all the information is represented in the article. If it wasn't already in the article, it had no business being in the infobox per the purpose of infoboxes. (See bullet #4.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is obviously User:Ali36800p evading their block, please don't feed the troll by engaging. MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming good faith, but it seems like I went overboard with it. Disengaging now; thanks for the advice! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do thing that Inconclusive;See aftermath is the best option, as long as you incorporate all the past bullet points that have been deleted into the see aftermath section, if enough editors agree, can this be done? 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think* not thing, my bad 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Needed?

I've boldly implemented what I see as consensus from the above subsection to use "See aftermath" in the results section of the infobox. One of the drive-by IPs from much further up the thread reverted, but did not comment in the above. I wanted to check in with the editor here whether the above policy-based arguments constitute consensus, of if we should elevate this to a formal RFC. My impression was that consensus was for "See aftermath", and no RFC is needed, and if the IPs edit against consensus, it may need admin attention. However, I'd appreciate some help in validating or correcting (as appropraite) my thinking here. Thanks! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Policy based arguments should represent the consensus. Let's see how things go. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we dont need to change it to a see aftermath section, if you guys think there are too many bullet points in the results section, look at how many points are in the result section in war on terror 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is off topic for this section, which is about how to enforce the above consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Table

Per the above section, it sounds like it may be useful to migrate some of the infobox fields into the article body. The existing section solely examines Iraqi casualties. Therefore, I propose the addition of a subsection entitled Casualty Overview and, in it, three tables of the form:

Forces Killed Missing/Captured Wounded
Force1 X dead Y missing Z Wounded
... ... ... ...
Total XX YY ZZ

There would be one table each for Coalition, Iraqi, and civilian casualties. This would allow us to make a single, high-level figure for the "Casulaties" section of the infobox, provide more detail in a piped link, and also direct the reader toward the article on casualties if desired. We'll also need to revamp the citations currently used in infobox; currently it's a lot of tabulation of values with bare URLs, which I think we can do better on.

Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a good place to start. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since I got that encouragement and no objections, here's a first stab at the Coalition Casualties Table:

Coalition Casualties
Force Killed Missing/Captured Wounded
Iraqi security forces (post-Saddam) 17,690[1] 40,000+[2]
Coalition forces 4,821 (4,421 US,[3] 179 UK,[4] 139 other)[5] (US): 17 (9 died in captivity, 8 rescued)[6] 32,776+ (32,292 US,[7] 315 UK, 210+ other[8])[9][10][11][12]
Contractors 3,650 [13][14][15] 43,880[14][15]
Awakening Councils 1,002+[16] 500+ (2007),[17] 828 (2008)[18]
Total 27,163 117,961

Something I didn't know how to categorize was this category in the coalition forces part:

Injured/diseases/other medical*: 51,139 (47,541 US,[19] 3,598 UK)[9][11][12]

Some problems with this table: As mentioned above, the sources are a mess. I suggest we put in the casualties section each of those year-by-year figures, summing to a total, and put each year's reference there. Then the table can make do without a reference, as it's only summarizing the article body.

I also note that some of the "sources" are, aside from being bare URLS, just links to Google Docs. We'll have to look more closely and purge the ones which aren't reliable.

Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Two thoughts: (1) I'd be hesitant about taking too much out of the infobox; we should probably end up with more than "a single, high-level figure for the "Casualties" section of the infobox" (depending on exactly what you mean by that). (2) This work ought to take account of Casualties of the Iraq War and vice versa. Furius (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! In order, (1) That's valid. I was thinking the casualties in the infobox would have something like, "Coalition-allied: X killed, Y Wounded", "Iraqui-allied: M killed, N wounded", and "See #Casualties" in a similar grouping to the current infobox. Is that still stripping out too much detail? (2) I agree emphatically. When I get more time, I might see about gathering some legitimate sources from that article to replace some of this mess. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like (2) will probably be a two-way process, so I applaud you for the undertaking! On (1) I agree that killed and wounded is enough. I think it would be important to keep the Iraqi security forces and Awakening separate, but that coalition and contractors can probably be merged, and that we should probably retain "detainees" on the insurgents' side. "Documented deaths from violence" can probably be reduced to a single range. "Statistical estimates" is tricky; getting rid of them entirely seems wrong, but the range of different estimates is so huge (151,000-1,033,000) and that range represents some very different methodologies. Furius (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the Casualties of the Iraq War article, and oh boy. It also has some majorly messed up citations. I think you're right that it's going to be a two-way street. Given the subject matter of that article, I'm thinking I should start refining that one first, have the more detailed discussions there, and once we have some presentable sections, copy (with attribution) them over to this article. @Furius, would you be willing to take a look from time to time? I'm still pretty new at this, so I'd appreciate an experienced editor's eyes on it to help me avoid mistakes.EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these kinds of specific current event articles are often this. I'm absolutely happy to act as a sounding board as you improve the article (it's actually quite important that articles like this be reliable), but note that I'm in no way a subject expert, so it might also be worth dropping a line to the relevant wikiproject from time to time. Furius (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(what you say about your planned approach is very sensible, imo) Furius (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ 260 killed in 2003,[1] 15,196 killed from 2004 through 2009 (with the exceptions of May 2004 and March 2009),[2] 67 killed in March 2009,[3] 1,100 killed in 2010,[4] and 1,067 killed in 2011,[5] thus giving a total of 17,690 dead
  2. ^ "Iraq War" (PDF). US Department of State. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
  3. ^ The US DoD and the DMDC list 4,505 US fatalities during the Iraq War.[6][7] In addition to these, two service members were also previously confirmed by the DoD to have died while supporting operations in Iraq,[8][9] but have been excluded from the DoD and DMDC list. This brings the total of US fatalities in the Iraq War to 4,507.
  4. ^ "Fact Sheets | Operations Factsheets | Operations in Iraq: British Fatalities". Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 11 October 2009. Retrieved 17 October 2009.
  5. ^ "Operation Iraqi Freedom". iCasualties. Archived from the original on 21 March 2011. Retrieved 24 August 2010.
  6. ^ "POW and MIA in Iraq and Afghanistan Fast Facts". CNN. Retrieved 5 June 2014.; As of July 2012, seven American private contractors remain unaccounted for. Their names are: Jeffrey Ake, Aban Elias, Abbas Kareem Naama, Neenus Khoshaba, Bob Hamze, Dean Sadek and Hussain al-Zurufi. Healy, Jack, "With Withdrawal Looming, Trails Grow Cold For Americans Missing In Iraq", The New York Times, 22 May 2011, p. 6.
  7. ^ "Casualty" (PDF). Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  8. ^ 33 Ukrainians,[10] 31+ Italians,[11][12] 30 Bulgarians,[13][14] 20 Salvadorans,[15] 19 Georgians,[16] Archived 13 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine 18 Estonians,[citation needed] 14+ Poles,[17][18][19] 15 Spaniards,[20][21] Archived 2 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine [22][23] 10 Romanians,[24] 6 Australians,[25] 5 Albanians, 4 Kazakhs,[26] 3 Filipinos,[27] and 2 Thais,[28][29] for a total of 210+ wounded
  9. ^ a b Many official US tables at "Military Casualty Information" Archived 3 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine. See latest totals for injury, disease/other medical Archived 2 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  10. ^ "Casualties in Iraq".
  11. ^ a b iCasualties.org (was lunaville.org). Benicia, California. Patricia Kneisler, et al., "Iraq Coalition Casualties" Archived 21 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ^ a b "Defence Internet Fact Sheets Operations in Iraq: British Casualties" Archived 14 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine. UK Ministry of Defense. Latest combined casualty and fatality tables Archived 4 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
  13. ^ "Human Costs of U.S. Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones | Figures | Costs of War".
  14. ^ a b "Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) – Defense Base Act Case Summary by Nation". US Department of Labor. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
  15. ^ a b T. Christian Miller (23 September 2009). "US Government Private Contract Worker Deaths and Injuries". Projects.propublica.org. Archived from the original on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2010.
  16. ^ 185 in Diyala from June 2007 to December 2007,[30] 4 in assassination of Abu Risha, 25 on 12 November 2007,[31] Archived 14 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine 528 in 2008,[32] Archived 10 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine 27 on 2 January 2009,[33] 13 on 16 November 2009,"Thirteen anti-Qaeda tribe members killed in Iraq – France 24". Archived from the original on 29 April 2011. Retrieved 14 February 2011. 15 in December 2009,[34] 100+ from April to June 2010,[35] [36] 52 on 18 July 2010,[37] [38] total of 1,002+ dead Archived 18 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ^ Moore, Solomon; Oppel, Richard A. (24 January 2008). "Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq". The New York Times.
  18. ^ Greg Bruno. "Finding a Place for the 'Sons of Iraq'". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 10 December 2016. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
  19. ^ "Global War on Terrorism – Operation Iraqi Freedom March 19, 2003 Through May 31, 2011 By Casualty Category Within Service" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2011. Retrieved 7 February 2016.

What the hell is wrong with the infobox now?

Who thought it was a good idea to oversimplify the infobox and remove most of the insurgent groups that were involved in the fighting? Somebody needs to reverse these changes. 78.170.229.162 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with CS1

@Alexeyevitch: Again, fixing a dash on an eISSN parameter in a citation causes an error message. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War"