Talk:Gulf War/Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018
The article that claims the Marine Corps participated in the largest tank battle of the gulf war at the Kuwaiti International may be false considering that I only saw one Iraqi Armoured personel carrier that had been destroyed..I was with 3rd Bn 3rd Marines at the the airport when the cease fire was announced.USMCDESERTSTORM (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) USMCDESERTSTORM (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done. This is referring to the "Reveille Engagement"  on February 25, 1991 described in the article Battle of Kuwait International Airport. Rmhermen (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018
Iraq had more rogue state supporters then just the two of them J.Greeny123459 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Losses Section
There is a section citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.116.204 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Gulf War → Persian Gulf War – Persian Gulf War should be the WP:Common name for this war (also known as Operation Desert Storm). This article should be at Persian Gulf War and that should be the WP:Common name for that war. Persian Gulf War is the WP:Common name and it is also the WP:primary topic.

History Channel uses the term "Persian Gulf War" which is specific to this conflict/war Operation Desert Storm: https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/persian-gulf-war

If you look at Encyclopedia Britannica or History Channel, it is referred to as "Persian Gulf War" in the Encyclopedia. https://www.britannica.com/event/Persian-Gulf-War#ref763273

The "Gulf War" is NOT precise enough to unambiguously define the topic, and there is a wide range of conflicts that use the name "Gulf War", and the page should be moved to Persian_Gulf_War. 2601:248:4B80:2FEE:5DF7:5988:B2FB:BA6F (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See talk page archive 1, 2, 3, and 4 for previous naming discussions. (Also someone should check the archiving setup on this page - almost everything is being put into Archive 1.) Rmhermen (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (admin note) I moved part of archive 1 into archive 6 and starting the current archive at 7. This should be fixed now.


 * Comment: So what you're saying is that Persian Gulf War is the common name? I wasn't sure I understood the first 3 times. On a more serious note, you brought only 2 sources and claimed that other conflicts are known as Gulf War but mentioned none and Gulf War (disambiguation) doesn't either. Leaning oppose if this is it in terms of your rational and backup of claims. --Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Gulf War" may not be the most accurate name but it is easily the most commonly used name, as evidenced by the reference list. Also, the alternative name is confusing because it could be read as saying the Gulf War was in some way "Persian". As someone else has mentioned, this has been discussed several times, and nothing has changed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, leaving "Persian" out of the name avoids the Persian Gulf naming dispute. There was a Gulf of Tonkin incident, but that is characterized as just an "incident" rather than a war. Per the "conciseness" criterion, the title "Gulf War" is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Leaning oppose, but support starting the lead sentence with "The Persian Gulf War" or "The (Persian) Gulf War", as articles are often titled by their shorter common name while the longer official name starts the lead sentence. While there may be a naming dispute, Persian Gulf is the current winner of the "dispute" as that's the title of Wikipedia's article about it. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Counter Reconnaissance and Breach sections don't fit here
These two sections don't match the rest of the article, in tone, in level of detail. They are very detailed sections about specific events and seem to be well cited, but do we want this level of detail in an article that's really an overview? I lost interest in the article when I came to those sections, and so other readers will too.

As it is, I'm not even understanding what's so important about those two sections that they deserve to be sections instead of subsections. What's so important about them in the big picture? (This is something that ought to be self-evident.)

Perhaps someone with a better understanding of this history can summarize all that sprawling, endless detail into a compact subsection? If not, I think the whole article will be improved by removing those sections entirely. Does anyone have anything to add about this?

Ninjalectual (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
I reverted an addition by User:Rs21867 that was: –Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * irrelevant because Afghanistan is otherwise only mentioned in passing,
 * self-contradictory because it claimed "Afghanistan" condemned actions of Iraq, but had "no widely-supported government" (thus no body that could speak on behalf of Afghanistan),
 * unsourced, and
 * verbose per WP:CAP.

US ambassador Glaspie
The quotes from her meeting with saddam seem somewhat biased or cherry picked as her most infamous reply to saddam, which might have misread by him as "green light" to attack Kuwait, is neither given as quote nor as a description. See for instance: --Kmhkmh (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-five-years-after-another-gulf-war
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/blinkered-view-of-iraq-diplomats-were-misled-by-saddam-s-cordial-manner-a-733153-2.html
 * https://www.newsweek.com/was-ambassador-glaspie-too-gentle-saddam-201292
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=CMZgD1Pa_YkC&pg=PA279
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=pyXdH9BkOGYC&pg=PA120

Naval warfare in the Gulf War
Is there is a reason there is no overview of the naval warfare in the Gulf war? Was the Battle of Bubiyan and the action during the Battle of Khafji the only naval warfare that took place? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Battle of Qurah and Umm al Maradim. Rmhermen (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Creating a coalition"
"Kohl was willing to repay his gratitude for the United States" isn't appropriate wording.

Section: Creating a coalition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.206.155.117 (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. It was an excessively wordy sentence. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018
Currently, a paragraph in this section states:

The result of the Jeddah talks was an Iraqi demand for $10 billion to cover the lost revenues from Rumaila; Kuwait offered $9 billion. The Iraqi response was to immediately order the invasion,[54] which started on 2 August 1990 with the bombing of Kuwait's capital, Kuwait City.

However, this was not the demand. Please check this link https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539171?seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents (citation: Janice Gross Stein, “Deterrence and Compellence in the Gulf, 1990-1991: A Failed or Impossible Task?,” International Security, vol. 17, no. 2. (Autumn 1992), p. 150.)

Iraq reportedly demanded $2.4 billion in compensation for the disputed Ramalia oil field; $12 billion for Kuwait’s role in depressing oil prices in general; forgiveness of Iraq’s $10 billion war debt; and a long-term lease on Bubiyan Island.

While this source does not mention any counters, I assume the 9b mentioned above would have been $9 billion in loan forgiveness, not cash, as that would match the more detailed description of the demands given in my source. Either way, the description of demands as it stands currently in the wiki article is not accurate. 134.173.173.177 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two Jeddah summits and two different demands here. Per your source, the demands you reference were sent in a memorandum to Kuwait on 16 July following a Jeddah summit on 10 July between oil ministers that Iraq was unsatisfied with the results of. As tensions continued to escalate, a special summit was convened, again in Jeddah, between an Iraqi and Kuwaiti official on 31 July. This is the summit described in the article, and your source describes the events there as follows: " At the meeting, Iraq demanded $10 billion in new loans from Kuwait. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia agreed to grant the loans but Kuwait insisted that before it granted the loan, the boundary question must be addressed. Iraq refused." So the demand in the article is accurate, but the Kuwaiti counteroffer differs. I'll check the Finlan source (ref 54 currently) to see if it addresses this point, and then decide how to change the article from there. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks for bringing this up! A2soup (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Looks like there is some work to do. Izno (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Dowd quote
In the Highway of Death section, this sentence:

New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd wrote, "With the Iraqi leader facing military defeat, Mr. Bush decided that he would rather gamble on a violent and potentially unpopular ground war than risk the alternative: an imperfect settlement hammered out by the Soviets and Iraqis that world opinion might accept as tolerable."

appears to be a non sequitur, given that the attack was an airstrike, even though it comes from a reference that addresses the topic.

Both quotes in that section are apologetics meant to deflect criticism. The second part of the Horner quote is similarly out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.127.166.33 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Scuds ... armed with nuclear and chemical warheads?
As of 2018-12-29, the section on "Scud and Patriot missiles" started, "The role of Iraq's Scud missiles featured prominently in the war. Scud is a tactical ballistic missile that the Soviet Union developed and deployed among the forward deployed Soviet Army divisions in East Germany. The role of the Scuds which were armed with nuclear and chemical warheads was to destroy command, control, and communication facilities and delay full mobilization of Western German and Allied Forces in Germany. It could also be used to directly target ground forces."

I'm deleting the last two sentences, because they relate to the Soviet uses of their Scuds, not Iraq's uses, and it's presence here is confusing -- and NOT backed by any citation.

Iraq had a nuclear weapons program but no nuclear weapons. They also had chemical warheads, which they had acquired with US assistance, and had used against the US military in the 1990-91 Gulf War, according to the 1994 Riegle Report, but I didn't hear about that until after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. Iraqi Scuds struck Israel in 1990-91, and I believe that if any had had chemical warheads, the world would have heard about that at that time.

I'm also deleting the sentence, "Concerns were raised of possible chemical or biological warheads on these rockets, but if they existed, they were not used", because it's known that chemical weapons were used, though they may not have been on the Scuds. The text is confusing and not needed. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cold War
I dispute this conflict being part of the Cold War on the basis that the Soviets not only refused to support Iraqi action against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia but went as far as officially condemning it. It is also a point that the Soviets support the Iraqi Communist Party whilst the Iraqi government suppressed them. 51.9.92.116 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it was one of the first big post cold war conflicts actually. However it depends a bit, which dates you use as end of the cold war. Gorbachov's final years and the fall of the iron curtain (1989) or the dissolution of the soviet union (1991), it seems WikiPedia has adopted the latter, which then places the gulf war within the cold war still. --Kmhkmh (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.38.88 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox casualties inconsistency
The numbers of casualties in the infobox seem to mostly rely on American defense-related agencies and organizations as well as official military histories, and they conflict with some impartial sources such as UN war damage reports. 25,000-50,000 Iraqi soldier deaths seems extremely low, as does the claim of 3,664 Iraqi civilian deaths. The "Ahtisaari report" gives 100,000-120,000 Iraqi military deaths, 3,500-15,000 Iraqi civilian deaths during the war and a further 39,000-81,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in the extended conflict directly caused by the war. This would bring the total Iraqi deaths to 142,500-206,000. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * We could list multiple casualty figures in the infobox like the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. Ianp18 (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019
CITATION NEEDED

Currently the article reads: "In the North, Kurdish leaders took American statements that they would support an uprising"

Please change to: "In the North, Kurdish leaders took American statements that they would support an uprising Ylleknivek (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Losses Section
There is a section citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Changes to do in a repetition.
"No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism ... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran." should be replaced with "No one had any doubts about [the Iraqis'] continued involvement in terrorism... The real reason was to help them succeed in the war against Iran." and the same in other quotations and also not spaces after a - beginning or before a - ending.A4exocet (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Czechoslovak army
Czechoslovakia sent specialized NBC protection batallion to support and protect army of Saudi Arabia. It was equipped with sensitive detection laboratories and decontamination technology. Vehicles UAZ-469-CH, BRDM-CH, Praga-V3S and Tatra-815. Stregth up to 200 men, commander Col. Ing. Ján Való. 178.255.168.33 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Losses Section... Again
Nobody noticed the last time I brought this issue up, so I'll try again. In the casualty part of the infobox, there is a part citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2019
the gulf war was not a good war 208.78.156.170 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Losses Section
Nobody noticed the last time I brought this issue up, so I'll try again. In the casualty part of the infobox, there is a part citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed. Sorry for the spam but please notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Highway of Death quote by a US commander
Is the blockquote by Commander Chuck Horner, defending the controversial operation, the most important and comprehensive piece of text to include? The actual article on Highway of Death presents the incident from multiple views, and also includes criticism of US military personnel's reporting/whitewashing of the topic. I think the quote should be removed altogether, as the topic is surely too complicated to summarize in a paragraph-length quote by anybody. At least, it could be replaced or accompanied by a quote by someone with perhaps a bit less partisan role in the conflict. 80.220.73.154 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020
"Video Game War" with two sources ... One in spanish? and one with a broken link ... These two links does not justify that it was ever called "Video game war" i have studied almost every newer war, and i have never heard the term used for this war before. Please do correct. 185.56.100.121 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Casualties
I'm not sure if the author is intending to be facetious or not but 'a neat device' which burns people alive probably wouldn't be considered as 'neat' by those incinerated by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.237.122 (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020
At the bottom of the infobox there is an "other civilian losses" section erroneously stating that 300 civilians from Israel and Saudi Arabia died during the Gulf War. The article used as a source does not use this number at all, rather mentioning only 2 direct Israelis deaths. The number and source should be removed and replaced with "75 civilians killed, 309 civilians injured"

My sources:

Israelis lost 74 civilians and 231 injured civilians. The Saudis lost 1 civilian 78 civilians injured. These numbers are from the "Iraqi Scud missile strikes on Israel and Saudi Arabia" section in the article. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5rd April 2020
There is a small grammatical error under 'Controversies::Effects of depleted uranium'. The third line ends ', including in birth defects child cancer rates.', which should read ', including birth defects and child cancer rates.' QuantumTM (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020
Change source 68 referencing the book "The Gulf War 1991" by Finlan (2003) and page 29 from showing page 29 as the source page of the information "Within hours of the invasion, Kuwait and US delegations requested a meeting of the UN Security Council, which passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troop" to page 13 which reads "In the United Nations (UN), reaction to Iraq’sinvasion was swift and the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 660 (UNSCR) just hours after the start of hostilities, condemning the military assault and calling for an immediate withdrawal."

Finlan, Alastair. The Gulf War 1991. Vol. Hardback ed, Taylor & Francis [CAM], 2003.

TL;DL reference 68 change pg.29 to pg 13 Shad0w ME-262 (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is there a digital version of the book that I can access so I can verify the page number? &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's  (talk) page 19:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hope you have a .edu email address. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=nlebk&AN=106404&site=eds-live&custid=s8365954&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C. Shad0w ME-262 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not going to work for me. I'll recuse from this request and leave it to someone else to verify until I get another method to verify or I somehow verify. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 22:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've checked the 2003 edition, that information is sourced correctly from p.29.  Perhaps you are looking at the 2014 edition? --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The source in question is Finlan, Alastair. The Gulf War 1991. Vol. Hardback ed, Taylor & Francis [CAM], 2003. Perhaps, the 2014 edition could be added as another source. I'm not sure how you verified it since the pages are blocked by a paywall. &#123;&#123;replyto&#125;&#125; Can I Log In's (talk) page 16:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020
Second paragraph down it says "US$32 billion of the US$60 billion cost." Change US$32 billion of the US$60 billion to "$32 billion USD of the $60 billion USD" Joey Ponziani (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020
Pingu420 (talk) Source needed for: tin cup trip Saudi Arabia and Kuwait providing $15 billion
 * Yes check.svg Done - added .  GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

obscenity
referring to bombs intending to kill *fleeing* adversaries as "neat" is simply obscence. And certainly absolutely not encyclopedic. 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:D012:2ADE:C096:992B (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with section order or includes?
Between "Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia (Battle of Khafji)" and "Ground Operations", there are several very detailed sections that are part of the "Battle of Norfolk" article and apparently included from there. That is definitely wrong with respect to ordering as these should be *below* "Ground Operations". Furthermore, they seem a bit too detailed to include in the main article anyway, IMHO. - Florian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.38.41.101 (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Video game war
The article claims that "The war has also earned the nickname Video Game War after the daily broadcast of images from cameras on board U.S. bombers during Operation Desert Storm.", however neither of the sources appear to be reliable and neither of them are in English. I propose that this statement either be deleted or backed up with real sources. LewriBaedi (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the invasion of iraq in the infobox
I was thinking of including the fact of tensions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the results in the infobox but i thought it would be controversial. What do you guys think? Ridax2020 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Correction Request: The Gulf War Officially Continues Under U.S. Law
Hello, Wiki ~

This is a request to correct an error on the Wiki page about the Gulf War, also known as the Persian Gulf War, sometimes called operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War.

My Background: Subject Matter Expert on Gulf War.

My name is Paul Sullivan, I am a Gulf War Veteran who served as an Army cavalry scout during the ground invasion of Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. I am a former Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the State of California (CalVet), and a former Project Manager for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). I also assisted with writing and advocating for passage of the "Persian Gulf Veterans Act of 1998," and similar healthcare and benefits legislation (38 USC 1117, 1118, and 1710(e)(1)(c)). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1118 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1710

As such, I was hired by VA in 2000 and was the project manager (GS-14) primarily responsible for identifying and monitoring the healthcare use and benefit activity of Gulf War Veterans. In addition, on more than two dozen occasions, I was asked to testify as a subject matter expert before the U.S. Congress (House and Senate) regarding Veterans, care, and benefits.

My LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-sullivan-807a701b9/ An example of my GWVIS report about Gulf War Veterans: https://www.va.gov/RAC-GWVI/docs/Gulf_War_Illnesses_Links/GWVIS_Aug_2008.pdf An example of my testimony about Veteran benefits: https://archives-veterans.house.gov/witness-testimony/mr-paul-sullivan-1

Facts Under Law: The Gulf War Officially Continues.

Under current United States law, the Persian Gulf War dates, are August 2, 1990, through the present (38 USC 101(33) and 1501(4)). Thus, the Gulf War officially continues under the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1501

The official Persian Gulf War geographic location, defined by U.S. regulation, is called Southwest Asia (38 CFR 3.317). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.317

Notes: The following are not laws that define the war date(s) and location(s). 1. Military designations for operations (i.e., Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn) 2. Mmilitary regulations for awards (i.e., Southwest Asia Service Medal). 3. Executive Orders (with the exception of one in the future that could officially end the conflict).

The legal definition and supporting regulation applies exclusively to the the U.S. Thus, U.S. law does not apply to other nations, as they have their own definitions of the war date(s) and location(s).

Wiki Gulf War Page Error:

Based on the above facts, I identified an error on the page about the "Gulf War." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War.

The page asserts, without reference to any current U.S. law or regulation, that the Gulf War ended in February 1991: "The Gulf War[b] (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991)."

The page uses three footnotes 24, 25, and 26 as sources:

24: "Frontline Chronology". Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 20 March 2007. 25: "Tenth anniversary of the Gulf War: A look back". CNN. 17 January 2001. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. 26: Kenneth Estes. "ISN: The Second Gulf War (1990–1991) – Council on Foreign Relations". Cfr.org. Archived from the original on 2 January 2011. Retrieved 18 March 2010.

None of the sources (24, 25, or 26) cited link to or mention a law or other primary legal source that actually defines the official date(s) and location(s) of the Persian Gulf War. The Wiki sources are news articles and a non-profit.

Request for Correction:

As a Gulf War Veteran who was in Southwest Asia during the conflict, and as a subject matter expert on VA law and benefits for Gulf War Veterans, I ask Wiki to fix the page.

The appropriate text should be: The term “Persian Gulf War,” also known as the Gulf War, means the period beginning on August 2, 1990, and ending on the date thereafter prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by law.

The appropriate citation should be: 38 USC 101 (33).

In addition, please mention there is no U.S. treaty or surrender by Iraq from August 2, 1990, to the present.

Additional Information:

The Wiki page can add clarifying information, such as, "This Wiki page refers only to the portion of the Gulf War between August 2, 1990, and February 28, 1991, because the Gulf War, under U.S. law, continues.

The text can also mention that when a political leader mentions a temporary end of fighting or the removal of troops from a nation or region, that does not officially end the Gulf War because the legal definition of the war remains on the books at 38 USC 101(33), with the supporting regulation at 38 CFR 3.317.

Thank you for your attention to my request for a correction in the legal definition of the Gulf War as it applies to the United States. Please respond to my inquiry in writing.

Sincerely,

Paul Sullivan Bethesda, Maryland paulsullivan137@gmail.com Paulsullivanveteran (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your well formed request. My concern with using a strict legal definition is that the Gulf War isn't a legally defined event. It was not an actual war in law, it is called a war only in common parlance, and that common parlance has the war ending in 1991. - SimonP (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gulf War should be viewed in an international context, rather than from a strictly US legal viewpoint. Consider that Resolution 686 documented the end of military activities against Iraq, including arrangements for ceasefire and release of POWs. TimSmit (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 22:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Resources for the correct name of the Persian Gulf War, not the Gulf War

 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep13805.9
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1354311
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/42975127
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/3092121
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1228978
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1354316
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304599462_The_Persian_Gulf_War
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345513546_Persian_Gulf_War_the_Movie
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237276736_Evidence_from_the_Persian_Gulf_War_of_1991_Evidence_from_the_Persian_Gulf_War_of_1991
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235133965_Clausewitz_and_the_Persian_Gulf_War
 * https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00953907
 * https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230111967_12

And countless other references. While in the article, there is no mention of Gulf War. (مصطفی کوهستانی (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Accuracy with regard to first U.S. Forces in Desert Shield/Desert Storm
The USS Eisenhower Battle Group were the first US Forces in the region after transiting the Suez Canal on August 3rd. Air Operations began on August 4th, monitoring Iraqi activities along the Saudi and Iraq and Kuwaiti border. This was 4 days before the arrival of the USS Independence Battle Group into the Persian Gulf and 3 days before the arrival of the F-15 squadrons of the US Air Force at King Khalid Military City. From August 3rd through August 7th, the USS Eisenhower Battle Group was the ONLY US Forces in the area.

I know this information because I was on board the USS Eisenhower as a member of VAQ-140, the Patriots, when we were recalled to the ship in Naples Italy on August 2nd and transited from there to and through the Suez Canal on August 3rd. We arrived in the Red Sea late on the day of August 3rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NLWFAinkenai (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have citations for this? We can't use first-hand accounts as sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dates of the war
Is it normal to count the Kuwait invasion as part of the war, to me this seems odd.Firestar47 (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and so currently does part of the article (Section 4: Run-up to the war) and so did all the media at the time (before this war began in mid January 1991, 'Gulf War' actually meant the Iran-Iraq War), and quite likely so do many (quite likely most, and possibly even almost all) Reliable Sources (and other sources) today. And quite likely this is a non-trivial matter that damages Wikipedia's reputation. But, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not sufficiently interested to try to fix it myself (it can be a lot of work to find what is the preponderance of Reliable Sources, and then to get this accepted by enough other editors). However I may add in a citation needed (tho one citation obviously proves nothing about the preponderance of Reliable Sources). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, for what it's worth, Google currently gives about 60,000 (and 9000 books) for "1990-91 Gulf War", against the far greater about 450,000 (and 80,000 books) for "1991 Gulf War". But of course Google cannot distinguish between Reliable and unreliable source, and somebody might also argue that it's just easier to give a single date and that there are other ways of writing "1990-91 Gulf War", etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNDUE, even if it eventually turned out that most Reliable Sources give 1990, we would still be required to give due weight to the 1991 minority, which we are seemingly not currently doing here (and this also applies to the 1990 view if it turns out to be the minority). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Quite likely the 1990 start-date is to blame for the fact that we currently (and ever since 2016) have a Redirect article called "1990 invasion of Iraq". There was no invasion of iraq in 1990, but I don't know how to fix this properly, as I don't know how to find the articles, if any, that are telling our readers that such an invasion occurred in 1990.


 * I also notice that there have seemingly been previous attempts to fix this problem, as can be seen from the infobox start date field in versions around late 2017 (for instance here)), but these attempted fixes were removed at some later date.


 * That said,after further reflection, I think the simplest solution for our problem here is to replace my CN requests with a footnote that includes citations to Reliable Sources giving 1990 and 1991.At least I know how to do this, tho it may take me a little time (but I'm leaving the CNs temporarily in place until then, because they signal to our readers that the date is somewhat problematic, and because their Reason field is in effect such a footnote, albeit one that will only appear if readers leave their cursor hovering there, which many will understandably not realize they need to do). Once the footnote is in place, the existing 1990 start date should presumably stay there per WP:CONSENSUS unless and until a consensus emerges to change to 1991, which might require the difficult task of convincing most editors that most Reliable Sources say 1991 (which may not even be correct, as it is very hard and perhaps even impossible to prove in practice, and in any case is probably more effort than it's worth once a suitable footnote is in place).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Counter Reconnaissance and Breach sections
These sections deal with one battalion level sub-unit, 600 troops in a conflict involving 1.5m and multiple division level forces. They are inappropriate to the level of the article and appear to have been repeated verbatim or near verbatim from both the Battle of Norfolk and Task Force 1-41 Infantry articles (it also appears from the talk section of the latter that the author was part of the unit). If every unit was to be covered at this level we would need to expand the Gulf War article by some several hundred sections, for the Coalition alone. If the information is worth retaining then it should be removed from here and should probably also be removed from the Battle of Norfolk article as it covers events preceding that battle and not related to it. There's no need to keep it in three places.

Additionally the sections do not fit within the structure of the article as they relate to the detailed conduct of one segment of the ground campaign, and precede the Ground Campaign section which doesn't offer remotely the same level of detail. 86.8.177.103 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Coalition Involvement
At some point the "United Kingdom" section has made the Battle of Norfolk article the "Main Article" link, rather than Operation Granby. Beyond the issues with the Battle of Norfolk Article (see "Counter Reconnaissance and Breach sections" immediately above), this deals only with one action involving 1st Armoured Division, and that as an aside in a US focused article, rather than addressing the full British contribution to the ground campaign and the major participation of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy in the air and naval campaigns. The "Main Article" link should be changed to Operation Granby which covers the full British contribution, just as Operation Friction covers the Canadian contribution and Operation Daguet the French. (If any of these articles are going to be linked as "Main Article" - currently two out of four, then probably all should). 86.8.177.103 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done. (Hohum @ ) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly Operativo Alfil has less information about Argentine operations than this article does, but I've linked it anyway. Perhaps the added exposure might encourage someone to expand it. (Hohum @ ) 18:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Death toll
Isn’t there an estimate that says 100,000+ Iraqis died? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html https://merip.org/1991/07/the-other-face-of-war/ Ridax2020 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Video Game War ?
From the introduction. I've never heard the Gulf War referred to as this. The first source cited, an academic paper written in Portuguese, does not seem to make reference to this nickname: it makes reference to "O Iraque no Grande Jogo Político Mundial" but that's all I found. The second source, also in Portuguese, appears to be a blog on now-defunct "jex.com.br", which is an unreliable source. Even if it were a reliable source, the source makes no mention of the nickname, just that Iraq looked like a video game. Holidayruin (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, we should remove that. I never seen a source calling it the video game war. Ridax2020 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, we should remove that. I never seen a source calling it the video game war. Ridax2020 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2021
Please see the New York Times bestseller The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraqi Conflict, by Joseph E. Stiglitz (winner of the Nobel Prize in economics) and Linda J. Bilmes. 2601:200:4500:A420:44C1:DC0B:64CE:CB76 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021
for the clarification needed on Iraq's "saber rattling" I was going to edit in parentheses "a display of threat or military force" Palmtreegames (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Palmtreegames (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 18:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This page is like taken out of Orwell's 1984
Would it really be too much to ask for something other than a white perspective? By white I mean white supremacist and racist perspective. And by 1984 I mean the fascist being replaced by said racists.

The Gulf War of 1991 was one of the most tragic events to mark modern Middle Eastern politics. In a span of 43 days, a massive military campaign was waged against the Iraqi nation that transformed Iraq from a modern country to a ‘pre-industrial state’.1 Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died; either directly from the war, from subsequent civil strife, or from the American and British enorced UN sanctions regime that has helped impoverish the Iraqi nation to this day.

Among the Western nations, the Gulf War has largely come to be accepted as a necessary, measured and even moral event. This paper attempts to attribute this attitude to what it argues was a racist outlook taken by Western societies against the Arab/Muslim peoples that in large part constitute the Iraqi population. Throughout the crisis with Iraq, a torrent of racist diatribe and activity has been directed against Iraqis and Arabs/Muslims in general. Both government and media have participated in this, helping foster public indifference to the massive suffering that is being inflicted upon ordinary Iraqis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602000220124872

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021
In the first paragraph of the article, it says that there were 35 nations in the U.S.-led coalition in the Gulf War. I checked the article about the coalition and I counted the countries, I counted *36* countries. The missing country was Honduras and it wasn’t on the list on the Gulf War page. I would request an edit to the first paragraph to say “36 countries (+ some Afghan Mujahideen fighters)”… thanks for taking the time to read this! Maximations (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - in fact the coalition article lists 37 countries (despite claiming 35), while the reference given here under the Coalition Involvement section  lists 39. Seems like we have some reconciling to do. Retswerb (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do I have to make a reply btw? Maximations (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 21:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Losses Section
Nobody noticed the last time I brought this issue up, so I'll try again. In the casualty part of the infobox, there is a part citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed.


 * 74 Israeli civilians were murdered, for a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"However"
"However, the UN subsequently spent billions rebuilding hospitals, schools, and water purification facilities throughout the country."

This is the dumbest use of "however" I have ever seen on Wikipedia. 111.106.166.232 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Role of Iran?
How was Iran involved?

Iran and the US have mostly been enemies since the 1979 nonviolent campaign that overthrew the Shah. I don't find them in the companion article on "Coalition of the Gulf War". I've therefore reverted your addition of | 🇮🇷 Iran to the {{Collapsible list
 * title = Coalition{{nobold|:}}.

If you think they belong, please cite credible sources and add them to that "Coalition" article.

Thanks for your support of the Wikipedia project. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. Far from being involved in the U.S.-led United Nations military campaign against Iraq, Iran notably declined to support its Shi'ite co-religionists against their common enemy, Saddam, during the 1991 Iraqi uprisings following the Gulf War, perhaps reflecting Iranian war-weariness after the long Iran–Iraq War of 1980–1988.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Persian gulf war
Should be renamed to Persian gulf war because instead of just gulf war. 94.129.179.217 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022
Put Palestine with Iraq under support. The PLO and Yasser Arafat supported Saddam's invasion in 1991.

"Palestinian officials initially denied reports that this was due to the PLO's refusal to apologize over its support of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. However, on 12 December 2004, Abbas, now the leader of the PLO, apologized for the Palestinian leadership's support of Iraq and Saddam Hussein during the invasion and occupation." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4089961.stm https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1478826/Palestine-apology-to-Kuwait.html

Many Palestinians joined the PLO to join the Iraqi Army https://books.google.com/books?id=6sWAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false OhioGopnik (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see where you'd want to add this. Also, it does not appear there was any actual support, as the Palestinians were expats, and making personal decisions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Damaged Abrams.jpg
 * Task Force 1-41.jpg

changing a good link to bad?
What are you trying to do changing the link to a real article, "Battle of Khafji", to something that doesn't exist, ""?

Am I missing something?

It looks like vandalism to me and is inappropriate. I expect that from anonymous users but not from people who bother to create a Wikimedia account. I've reverted it. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Where's Syria?
Where's Syria? It was part of the coalition 2A0D:5600:45:F001:0:0:0:9CBF (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Czech casualties
As per the Czech ministry of defense, one member of its Chemical Unit was killed and four were wounded on January 18th, 1991. https://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=5752

Hey, DavidMCEddy, could you have a look at this? 39.116.182.33 (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added one death to the table, per the sources Petr Šimonka was an accidental death on 18 January 1991 during a combat alert. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yemen
Did you read the comment ?

In 2016 someone asked about Italy (above). It's currently on the "Coalition" list below Kuwait, US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Last month someone asked about Czechoslovakia; it's there now. Someone also asked last month about Syria. I do NOT see it on the "Coalition" list, though the article documents Syrian involvement. I think it probably should be on the "Coalition" list, but I've only been a casual observer of this article, not an expert, so I'm not going to add it now.

However, I don't see documentation in this article of involvement by Yemeni military. That indicates they should NOT be included in the "Belligerents" list at the top of the article. If you have documentation of involvement of Yemeni military, that needs to be included in the article. Because I can't find it in the article, I'm reverting again your addition of Yemen as a Belligerent with Iraq. If you think it belongs, please change the article as appropriate, citing credible sources, BEFORE you try to add it again to the "Belligerents" list. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2022
Change Warrior APC to Warrior IFV. 2A01:4C8:809:81A8:1:1:4EFF:C2B7 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a Wikipedia article on Warrior tracked armoured vehicle. This "Gulf War" article contains 3 references to "Warrior":  To "Warrior APCs", "the Warrior tracked armoured vehicle", "Warrior IFVs."  Are the terms "tracked armoured vehicle", "armoured personnel carrier" and "infantry fighting vehicle" different names for the same thing?  Or are they different?  DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox extremely long
This article came up at a discussion to a proposed infobox expansion at Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine where this article was used as an example of why gigantic infoboxes are okay. I have to say... this article's infobox isn't setting a good example. As a reminder, collapsible sections auto-expand on mobile, so that full list of Coalition countries in the belligerents field is getting displayed every time. The Commanders & Leaders section is also exceptionally long, are the detailed results and casualty figures. I have a gigantic phone, and the infobox still takes 6 & a half screens of scrolling to display. Would there be any objection to cutting it down? The infobox is for a summary, not every true fact. If there's something too long to stick there, a link to detailed figures should be acceptable. SnowFire (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders
I concur: I think "Commanders and leaders" should ONLY include people mentioned in the article:  If they are not mentioned in the article, their contributions to this war were not sufficiently important to justify their inclusion in the Infobox. The Infobox should be a terse summary, I think, of the contents of the article.

You just added Muzahim Saab Hassan to the Infobox, even though Muzahim Saab Hassan is not otherwise mentioned in the article. How do you feel about deleting Muzahim Saab Hassan from the Infobox along with the other names that are there that are not otherwise mentioned in the article? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point, I only added him because he was in command of the Iraqi Airforce during the war. If we feel that there's too many commanders in the info box I would agree we should remove him. DiSantis19 (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh and there is J. William Kime who was the commandant of the coast guard are you all okay with removing him too. I checked the article and there is no mentation of him or the coast guard in it. DiSantis19 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Spanish and Italian deaths during the Gulf War.
According to El Pais, 2 Spanish sailors died in non-combat incidents while deployed to the Gulf in support of the allied effort. https://elpais.com/diario/1991/03/15/espana/668991613_850215.html One Italian Sailor was also killed (murdered while ashore) while deployed to the Persian Gulf. https://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1991/03/02/festa-lacrime-amarezza-per-maro-rientrati-dal.html

Fistagon Rising 001 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Sirdog (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources are in the request. I want to add those deaths to the coalition tally. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅: I've added them to the table. BlackShadowG  (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Contrary statements to german contribution of forces
In "Creating a coalition": As stated in the paragraphs before and after, Germany did not contribute forces to the coalition. But nevertheless it is included in the list of 39 countries that the coalition forces are made of:

"A coalition of forces opposing Iraq's aggression was formed, consisting of forces from 39 countries: [...] France, Germany, Greece, [...]"

Means this list is incorrect and Germany should not be part of this list. 2001:4DD6:7828:0:417F:CB3:6CD7:A287 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

First sentence
Someone has recently changed the first sentence so that it says the Gulf War "refers to" the 1990-91 armed campaign. It doesn't refer to that; it is that. See WP:REFERS for details of why this is a poor way to write. 109.144.208.240 (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, thank you for the heads up/ MaximusEditor (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture game addition
Desert Strike is most likely the first game ever made about the Gulf War. It should be included in the Popular culture section, thanks! BlazeFielding (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Article merged: See old talk-page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

USMC
The entire Marine Corps is not even mentioned..Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellpayneusmc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Losses Section
Nobody noticed the last time I brought this issue up, so I'll try again. In the casualty part of the infobox, there is a part citing 300 "other" civilian losses when the actual article mentions only 31 deaths. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Current year mention outside source
The article contains an "As of 2020", this should probably be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marijn211 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

16th vs 17th why the back and forth
The article keeps bouncing around in various paragraphs between 16th and 17th for the aerial bombing. Is it vandalism? Tallard (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Title
This article, by its name, pretends to be about the first "Gulf War" -- yet the original Persian Gulf conflict of the modern era, that was globally referred to as the "Gulf War," happened previously in the war between Iraq and Iran, in the 1980s.

And it was not a minor conflict -- resulting in the deaths of many thousands, disrupting the global oil trade, hardening the infamous dictatorships in both countries (helping to set the stage for the subsequent "Gulf War" with the U.S. and western powers, and other tensions and incidents), and even resulting in a supposedly accidental Iraqi air attack on a U.S. ship, the USS Stark.

A Western-centric perspective on the Middle East commonly results in Western writers mistakenly overlooking the first major Gulf conflict, and instead referring to the first major Gulf conflict with the United States and European nations as the so-called First Gulf War -- and the title of this article appears to reflect that erroneously narcissistic/myopic-Western perspective.

It should be titled "Second Gulf War," in my humble opinion.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Gulf Invasion of 1990-91 would be the only acceptable title. It is baffling to see this being called simply Gulf War. Tallard (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The name is incorrect
If its name is Gulf, why does it say Persian Gulf here? مصطفی کوهستانی (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @مصطفی کوهستانی The article title is based on Article titles policy — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many "Gulf", as there are many seas. Can you name a sea that has no suffix? and just call it "Sea".
 * So how do you say the Persian Gulf, Gulf?
 * "Gulf War" is as ridiculous as saying "Sea War". مصطفی کوهستانی (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * [[File:UN Persian Gulf.jpg]] مصطفی کوهستانی (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023
Desert Strike is most likely the first video game ever made about the Gulf War. It should be included in the Popular culture section, thanks! BlazeFielding BlazeFielding (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This needs secondary sources to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023
Add India to Diplomatic Support for Iraq

References:

131.217.255.210 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I cannot evaluate the pages of the book submitted here, as there is no viewable text at the provided links and I do not have it. However, the second link to the archived ISSI page has this text about the Gulf War: "During the 1991 Gulf War, the Indian government under Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar took a pro-US stand." This does not support the requested edit. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

French flag problem
Where it shows the countries that got involved it shows the French flag with light blue however when it shows the commanders the French commanders flag have navy blue instead of light please fix this Blackeyedpea2 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)