Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 90 days

Template:Vital article

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.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 20, 2008.

Australia: Military history B‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal 2003 invasion of Iraq is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Poland B‑class Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Terrorism B‑class High‑importance

	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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq B‑class Top‑importance

	Iraq portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / North America / Polish / United States / Post-Cold War C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

United States B‑class High‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world B‑class High‑importance

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SaddamStatue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders

Surely we should only have heads of government and CIC of armed forces and theater commander? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Supported by:

Really, France, Sweden? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Oppoed to" and supporting are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Not in the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree🤣🤣🤣 Parham wiki (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, edit warred back in. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russia should stay, the rest should be removed. Parham wiki (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2023

It has been proposed in this section that 2003 invasion of Iraq be renamed and moved to United States invasion of Iraq.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose. The nom does not give a reason why the proposal is an improvement. Srnec (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd also like to propose a WP:SNOWCLOSE. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arguably any argument for this change is equally an argument to change the others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Created a draft outline page for the Iraq War

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)[reply]