Talk:Iraq War/Archive 34

Removal of useful information
Snooganssnoogans - Why did you revert the following change? (also NYCJosh) Iraq-war Further background on the unreliability and lack of quality intelligence the USA had prior to the Iraq war is entirely relevant to this article and it makes me really question your integrity when you remove stuff like this, as your edit history shows you have a clear agenda. This should stay up. I also find it bizarre you have an issue with someone removing content they don't like here, yet looking at your edit history, you seem to do this constantly? Any political views you don't agree with, you remove without any discussion. If there are any "serious concerns" here, then they relate to the biased, lack of NPOV editing style you are using Apeholder (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop stalking me. Both edits were horrible and should have been reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not run by your rules and there is no rule for an edit being "horrible". It was valid, well sourced and entirely relevant. I'm going to restore it. Apeholder (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Removal of well sourced, relevant information, and of headings much needed to guide the reader, is improper without a solid reason well grounded in WP rules. One editor's personal assessment that such an edit is "horrible" is not a proper reason.--NYCJosh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the edit is useful, since the WMDs story was the main selling point of the war. TFD (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that the various subheadings added by Josh in this edit are reasonable, except for the first: "U.S. government searches for a way to attack Iraq immediately following 9/11". The subheading is justified by the text that follows, but it is extraordinarily heavy-handed and thus diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. I think a good litmus test is the "Razor" in Raul's WP:LAWS: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." Arguably the next added subheading "U.S. commences public relations campaign for war" could be better changed to "Public relations campaign," or something similar, though I'm not sure what's best here.
 * It's important that headings and subheadings not be editorial. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." Wikipedia articles accept as fact that the earth is round, the moonlanding happened etc. While the heading might have been seen as a matter of opinion at the onset of the war, today it reflects accepted fact. See for example the statement in The Iraq War: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2012), p. 2: "The president's remarks suggest a determination to invade Iraq in search of a pretext for doing so." Even at the time, neutral experts who had access to the material said there was no evidence of WMDs. TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you've written, but that subheading I've flagged just does not read as encyclopedic. What about "Plans to attack Iraq after 9/11," or something like that? -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Iraq said it had WMDs" in lead
What is the source for this? Where is this covered in the body? As far as I can tell, Iraq never outright stated that they possessed WMDs. What did was to not signal clearly that they dismantled their WMDs and that they failed to provide unambiguous evidence that they had no WMDs. Per Lake: "Saddam could not provide unambiguous evidence to the international community of his compliance with the UN disarmament resolutions without also revealing his military weakness to internal opponents, Iran, and possibly other regional powers—including Israel." + "In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Saddam Hussein was unwilling to signal clearly that he had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and thus ran a higher risk of conºict with the United States in order to deter challenges from his Shiite and Kurdish minorities and regional rivals, especially Iran" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Iraqi government repeatedly declared that it had no WMD. For example, in 2002, it supplied a 12,000-page report documenting its weapons programs and its destruction of its WMD the 1990s:.
 * Looking over the lede again, I realize that we do not mention WMD until the third paragraph. As it was the justification given for the war, WMD should be in the first paragraph, maybe even the first sentence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri "Killed in Action"??
He died many years after the end of the war, but for some reason the summary lists him as killed in action with the dagger. 2607:FEA8:4C21:E100:20FF:B520:9835:D115 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * no, he died natural death!

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Iraqi insurgents with MANPADS.jpg

Sides in Infobox
Why are ISIS, Saddam's government, and the Shia militias all listed as being on the same side in this war? That strikes me as a glaring inaccuracy in this article. Rivere123 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Separation lines implemented in the column of the infobox indicating that although they are all against the US-led Coalition they are not allies themselves. Discussed years ago and also same practice implemented in other war articles where two different groups fight against a third party, but are not allied to eachother. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

War Authorisation in Lede
"In October 2002, Congress authorized President Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq" can be misunderstood as Congress supporting a military attack. In reality, it only authorized giving the President the power of military intervention if he chooses to, i.e. the decision-maker was Bush, not Congress. Quotes: "Mr. President we are about to give you a great trust", "We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance", "The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for". Suggest making the sentence more accurate and less prone to misinterpretation: "In October 2002, Congress authorized President Bush the power to decide whether to launch any military attack against Iraq." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Casualty estimate in the first paragraph
It doesn't make much sense to list the estimated casualties for the first 3 to 5 years of the war in the first paragraph for an 8 year war when their are figures covering the 8 years. It would make much more sense if updated figures were used for the entire 8 years. The death estimates listed don't even cover most of the civil war period, the deadliest period. GreenCows (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede
Stating the US Congress voted for the war in the lede is misleading as the invasion itself was illegal under international law. There was no second resolution from the UN, and the invasion violated Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter. (86.151.111.73 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC))

Collage copyright issue
The bottom right image of the collage has been. I can put together a new one. Any requests? Schierbecker (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Iraq War montage.png

Who is Prince Robe
Under the "Commanders and leaders" section, there is a name among the Spanish leaders that says "Prince Robe". No reference, no results on Google search, nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.27.81.240 (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that was vandalism. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Death estimate from Opinion Research Business Survey
In the table under the section "Casualty estimates" it states that the Opinion Research Business survey found 1,033,000 violent deaths from the conflict, however in the summary table to the top right on the page, where the same number is quoted, there is a footnote claiming that these 1,033,000 deaths are the "Total excess deaths include all additional deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.". This discrepancy needs to be sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1458:202:79:0:0:102:D72F (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Results
The infobox currently lists a great many results of this conflict: This is much more detail than is normal in these infoboxen (compare French Revolutionary Wars, World War II and even World War I. While I agree that all of these things have happened, in some sense, as a result of the war, not all of them seem to be direct results. I'm particularly sceptical about the 2019–2021 Iraqi protests and about having both the rise and "Subsequent reduction in violence and depletion" of al-Qaeda in Iraq as consequences of the war. I also wonder whether the Civil War of 2006-2008 is a result of the war rather than a part of it and I wonder wheher some of the events after 2014 would be better seen as results of the Escalation of sectarian insurgency after US withdrawal and the Re-escalation of conflict rather than of the war directly? Furius (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Furius (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Overthrow of Ba'ath Party government
 * Execution of Saddam Hussein in 2006
 * Recognition of the Kurdistan Autonomous Region
 * Emergence of significant insurgency, rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq
 * Civil war between 2006 and 2008
 * Subsequent reduction in violence and depletion of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2008
 * Establishment of parliamentary democracy and formation of new Shia-led government
 * Withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in 2011
 * Escalation of sectarian insurgency after US withdrawal leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in Iraq
 * Re-escalation of conflict in 2013 ending in 2017
 * Return of US forces to Iraq in 2014
 * Low-level insurgency following 2017
 * Stronger Iranian influence in Iraq
 * Protests against the Iranian intervention in 2019 "

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment
— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's a clear consensus against the proposed title, and although there's a bit more interest in some other sort of move, consensus seems to be that the current title is the common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Iraq War → USA-Iraq war – Title is ambiguous; Iraq has been involved in multiple wars. I assume "Iraq war" is the name used in the USA, but this justification is somewhat nonsensical and POV. -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 20:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Do I need to say anything? Oppose. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do. Move debates are not votes. The Meta Boi (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: MOS:NOTUSA, MOS:ENBETWEEN, and other parties were also involved. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Relevant guideline to OP’s point is WP:POVNAME. The notion that the term is “POV” is irrelevant because the standard is to instead use the common name used by reliable sources. The article is at the correct title. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and glancing through non-USA sources "Iraq War" is definitely the most common, with Invasion of Iraq seemingly second. But definitely not USA-Iraq war. Skynxnex (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - multiple countries involved. I agree the name is not ideal, but it is simple. Perhaps War in Iraq with dates would be better. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Massive Oppose - Iraq War is the most common name for this conflict. The USA was formally at war with Iraq only for the invasion phase. Plus, multiple countries (UK, Australia, Poland, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc) were involved. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 15:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Title is non-specific and does not reflect an encyclopedic tone, especially due to the numerous parties involved in said war. The Meta Boi (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So why are you supporting a title that highlights only two? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It wasn't only Iraq but Support - a different name that is more encyclopedic BoonDock (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the common English name for the conflict and the article title should not change unless the common English name changes. As for the claim that the title is not encyclopaedic, well, the same title is used by the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, the World Book Encyclopedia, and The Iraq War Encyclopedia. "The Iraq war" give 5.6 million results on google, "USA-Iraq war" give 8,530. The proposed title is not less ambiguous, since there have been two wars between the USA and Iraq. Furius (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common name. And you do know that half the world was involved in it? Not just Iraq and the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given above. Maybe "Iraq War (2003–2011)" could be considered as a name for the article, I suppose? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were other countries involved. Include the year in the title if needed, but not USA. Bkatcher (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Dead link
[61] weeklystandard.com is a dead link Unnecessarily (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved    Material Works  (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Iraq War → Iraq war – Per WP:NCCPT. I understand that it will require a lot of cleanup, but we must follow the policy WP:NCCPT. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 12:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." The sources support "Iraq War" essentially being a proper noun, in the same fashion as World War II. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 13:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * War isn't a proper noun though. Anyway, plenty of sources use "Iraq war" - see this article for example . - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * War in itself isn't, but the name of a specific war might be. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your logic implies that War on drugs would be capitalized. And most sources use War on Drugs with a capitalized "Drugs". - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 13:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood "might be". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For exactly the same reason as on the RM for Somali Civil War, by the same editor. Like all wars with a recognised name, the title is a proper noun, not a description, so NCCPT doesn't apply. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  13:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, per common name, and the n-grams show that the name has become a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Iraq War" is a proper name. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's clearly become a proper name by now, just like Iran-Iraq War and Gulf War. I'd argue that 2003 invasion of Iraq needs to be moved to Invasion of Iraq for the same reasons. Daß Wölf 18:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as this is a proper noun BhamBoi (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This could be a speedy SNOW close. BhamBoi (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Huh? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding A List Of Weapons
Can We Please Add A List Of Weapons/Equipment To This Wiki Page ? 188.136.9.17 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Iran victory?
Why is Iran the winner of the war in the article but not in the information box? Parham wiki (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it depends on the context and the phrase being used. The US army study is implying that Iran may be the only country to have gained more than it had lost. It is saying Iran may have benefited from the war. It does not seem clear to simply have the info box say "Result: Iran victory" above all the other summaries of major consequences in the Iraq war. Earl Moss (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Add Category:Tony Blair
The Iraq War was a notable event to happen during Tony Blair's premiership, so this page should be added to it 79.66.89.36 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is the result not a simple "US victory"?
Going by standards for other Wikipedia articles on wars, the US unambiguously won with Iraq. The invasion phase lasted a month, followed by a full occupation. Saddam was tried and then hung. Iraq is a toothless nominal democracy. Western companies have access to Iraqi oil fields. Turkey wants to build a pipeline over Iraq. Galehautt (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Edit: Coalition victory* Galehautt (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it ended up creating multiple civil wars in a country that is still very unstable where the only actual strategic victory was given to Iran (something inherently against US foreign policy interests) which means that the entire comprehensive war as a whole cannot be defined by winners and losers? There are specific segments with separate articles that are objective military victories such as the 2003 invasion which is already listed as a coalition victory. The entire war even just from 2003-2011 really does not fit the criteria for a victory in a binary sense, especially with direct implications to the present. Rather, it warrants an explanation of the multitude of geopolitical changes that occurred, and do not fit snugly into the binary of what would be considered a victory. Especially when the goal posts and situation had changed so many times in the course of the conflict. 68.237.63.185 (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not more unstable than other countries in the region nowadays. One could even say it's more stable now than many (see: Syria, Yemen) Galehautt (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If we were to define the Iraq war as occurring only in 2003, the U.S. won -- defeating a hapless Iraqi military and occupying the country. However, the article as now written defines the Iraq war as from 2003-2011 and the U.S. most certainly did not win that war. Military victories are worthless if they do not achieve or contribute to the achievement of political and/or territorial objectives of the war. The objective of the neo-cons leading George W. into the war was to create an Iraq that would be an asset to the U.S. in the Middle East or at least compliant to U.S. wishes. That wasn't achieved. Smallchief (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The civil war/sectarian warfare lasted from 2006 to 2008. The US left in 2011. Galehautt (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This was not a victory by any standard in the end aside from the 2003 overthrow of the Hussein regime. This is overall far more of a strategic defeat for the US and has led to an ongoing conflict to this day. There's no winner here when considering the entirety of the comprehensive conflict even just between 2003-2011, which ended with the FIRST withdraw of US troops, implying that their initial foray into Iraq was a failure requiring multiple reinterventions.
 * That point on current stability relative to other countries doesn't matter as it was never an aim of the war in the first place: see the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq war which was and is listed as an objective victory against Saddam's forces. You are overlooking a tremendous amount of nuance in the conflict. One could argue this was a strategic failure given the current geopolitical landscape. A simple results section listing the objective events is far more adequate than declaring the entire war (that is currently still ongoing in a capacity) as a coalition victory. They achieved victory against Saddam militarily, sure, then came the civil war and then the conflict became about nation building, as well as maintaining Iraq which has had dubious results in the ensuing years to the present.
 * That's why the 2003 invasion article lists it as a coalition victory. But overall in the conflict you can't keep changing the goal posts but look towards the end results which definitely point in the direction of a strategic failure for the coalition forces. The Shiite majority gained power and is now associated with Iran, an American adversary which gained strategic geopolitical victory for Iran in that they now have a cohesive geopolitical land bridge from Iran to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is definitely not a victory for the United States. Also I could go on and continue regarding your arguments made earlier about Turkey, especially as a Kurdish autonomous area with a military is a strategic disaster for them, but I'm not sure you care about the nuances of the political situation when you are simply considering this a victory because Saddam was toppled, despite the fact that America spent many years afterwards fighting the very enemies of Saddam after creating a geopolitical vacuum that allowed Iranian backed insurgents against the American forces to gain power to this day. Was Iran part of the coalition? Do you realize that Iran was part of the Axis of evil named by Bush himself that also included Iraq? Is that a victory? Jokersace (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it a strategic defeat for the US? The region is pacified. Galehautt (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it was a victory is determined by what reliable sources say, not our own interpretations. While the U.S. defeated Saddam Hussein, it was never able to gain control of the country, eventually surrendering it to the very people they were fighting. TFD (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The region is not "pacified" nor is that even a strategic goal. This issue was settled in 2014 by referring to a multitude of think tank sources. 68.237.63.185 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What happened to the results section?
Was it really necessary to remove all the results and make it instead much harder to read 85.104.52.245 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the long-standing "Results" section of the infobox for now, as I agree that removing it made the article less functional. Per 's edit summary, the rationale for removing it is "Since there was no winner in the war, I created a new section called Results to explain the results in detail. ... I did this because of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE." This reasoning seems questionable to me, as there are many Wikipedia articles on wars with indecisive outcomes, such as the Iran–Iraq War, that nevertheless feature an infobox listing high-level "Results" of the conflict; I do not believe that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE precludes us from mentioning such information here in summarized form. Furthermore, the prose "Results" section added by Parham wiki was not an adequate substitution or replacement for the lost content.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry; You are right. Parham wiki (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Created a draft outline for the Iraq War
The (currently incomplete) page is over at Draft:Outline of the Iraq War for anyone interested in contributing to this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Supported by
Not agreeing with a war is not the saem as supporting one of the combatants, this needs reverting. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I added Russia because of sources who said that Russia is providing military and intelligence support to Iraq. Apparently, some people misunderstood and added those countries! Parham wiki (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be the case. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While on page about Ukraine war there are no foreign countries listed as supporters of Ukraine despite giving inteligence and satelite data, not even counting armament supplies. So much about neutrality, Wikipedia is source of NATO propaganda. 178.220.34.35 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with 178.220.34.35, there is no reason to make this a mess. The main belligerents should remain as they once were before this change. RamHez (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Name of the war: Second Gulf War, or Second Iraq War.
During the time American and British forces began hostilities against Saddam Hussein this was referred to as the second incarnation of the conflict that began in 1991 in removing Iraq forces from Kuwait. The conflict cannot be understood without reference to that war and it is historically illiterate to ignore the common description during the time it was going on. The first time I ever read it referred to as the "First Iraq War" to distinguish it from the conflict from 2013-2017 was in this article—nowhere else. I’m not sure if this is ignorance or another example of Wokepedia bias in somehow severing the conflict from the more unambiguously successful First Gulf War, but either way it should be changed to reflect historical reality. In fact, I’ve heard it referred to as the Third Gulf War, the first being the Iran-Iraq War, but that’s likely either academic or of regional importance and cannot speak to. Saying "First" is plain wrong though. Sychonic (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Belligerent List
Per the back-and-forth between me and, it seemed good to start a discussion on the list of belligerents in the infobox. The objection that "Kurdistan is a part of Iraq" doesn't seem relevant to me, as so is the Awakening Council and Iraq National Congress. So removing Kurdistan only seems unbalanced. Regarding when MNF-I was established, its article confirms 2004. However, that would mean we should also include CJT-7 to the Phase 1 belligerents, as it was the entity involved between 2003 and 2004. Thoughts, everyone? EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Iraq National Congress was the enemy of Saddam Hussein. The Peshmerga are part of the Iraqi government, while the Awakening Council is not.
 * CJT-7 was established after the invasion. It is misleading if CJT-7 is in phase 1. Parham wiki (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off on responding to these points for now; I need some time to gather my thoughts.
 * I note your more recent edit seems to be aiming to consolidate a list of the belligerents, citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. First, thank you for holding off for discussion, and second, I think I agree with you that we need to trim the infobox way down. The detailed breakdown of belligerents and force dispositions makes the infobox unwieldy. I think if there's some way we could narrow the belligerents list down substantially, that would be in the best interest of the article. For instance, using "MNF-I" would be a good catch-all for the Phase 2 coalition side, except for the pointed out fat that it was established in 2004, not 2003. Is there some better article of the group we could reference instead of the entity-by-entity list?
 * Thanks,, for your help in cleaning this up; I hadn't even thought of pruning the belligerents list, but I think it very much needs to be done. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I did not find another article. Parham wiki (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. Perhaps we need to get creative. What would everyone think about instead adding a section, something like "Involved Parties" to the article body? That way, we could list the major players (by troop count) and add in a row for "Others (see Involved Parties)" with a hyperlink. This would also allow us to vet all the claims and make sure that there are RS for each of them. Thoughts?EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we have some RS saying ny of this? Slatersteven (talk)}
 * I think we can dig up a few sources on dates. The CJTF-7 article seems light on sources for these, but I found |this .mil source which mentions June 15 as the start of CJTF-7. ("In May, V Corps learned that it would form the nucleus of CJTF-7, which would stand up on 15 June.") We might want to add that to both articles. When I get more time, I can keep looking for dates for MNF-I. Is this what you were asking for, or did I misunderstand?
 * Regarding phases, I think we have a deeper issue here. I don't see any mention of "First Phase" in the article body, so what constitutes "First Phase" is not well-defined. Perhaps we could reword the infobox to be more specific, and follow the wording of the article: "Initial Invasion" and "Post-invasion Phase". Thoughts?EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I am all for anything that works toward substantially reducing the size and detail that the infobox is trying to capture, noting that excessive detail is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I have been working toward this myself. Edits should not create inconsistencies within the infobox and this would be 's objection in the first instance. However, this might be an ideal rather than a necessity as we work toward an end collaboratively. I am at present working from the bottom up in the infobox. This is less likely to result in inconsistences. It might be a good idea if we all concentrated our efforts in the lower part of the infobox? Firstly, this means taking the civilian casualty detail and references and putting that into the existing table in the body of the article as a start. The infobox should be supported by the body of the article, so writing in stuff in the body as suggests, is a good place to start too. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That seems like a much smarter way to do things; bottom-up it is, then!EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Iraq war
The result are simple enough we don’t need to change it to see aftermath section. 89.205.131.197 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * see thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of aftermath
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 85.145.156.35 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * see above. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of Aftermath
Per the above discussion, the article could use a paragraph to introduce the "Aftermath" section. I would like to workshop that here. Here's a first draft:

We could either add this as a new subsection (say, "Summary"), or else we should remove the "Emerging conflict and insurgency" subheading, as currently it is the only entry in the "Aftermath" heading. The above is a VERY rough start, so any assistance in modifying and improving this is appreciated!EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * can we please not seriously Ali36800p (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we not add that paragraph? We certainly don't have to, I thought you wanted something added prominently to state the coalition forces failed to defeat the insurgents, and this is the place to do it. If you're asking to not remove the bullet points from the results tab, per the above discussion, then this may be an opportunity to practice dispute resolution.
 * Cinderella157 and I seem convinced that the policy argument for removing the bullets is very solid. You seem convinced that this is not the correct thing to do. (I still don't understand why, fully, but that's okay.) Since discussion between us doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I propose that we ask for additional input from the WikiProject on military history, WP:MIL. This means that both of us would have to agree to abide by consensus, whatever it may be. Can you agree to this course of action?, would you also support this course?EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the new paragraph but can we please keep the bullet points in the results tab? Ali36800p (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are guidelines that very strongly indicate they should be removed. Unless you have an argument that 1) these guidelines are being misinterpreted or misapplied, or 2) can demonstrate that there is a broad base of editors who oppose these guidelines being applied here, then it looks to me that there's a consensus for removing the bullet points.
 * This is why I suggested going to WP:MIL. You haven't yet provided an argument per #1, and the best shot at finding #2 is to invite more editors to look. If you're correct, they'll see that, and consensus will be reached to keep the bullets. If you remain in the minority, that would indicate that removing the bullets is best, and they would be removed. But if you do neither #1 nor #2, then I think the consensus is clear, and the bullets will be removed, and any attempt to re-add them would be considered stonewalling, and the person attempting to add them would be blocked. This is why I'm trying so hard to get us to an agreement.EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Iraq won the Iraq war it's the insergency they kicked America out in 2011 2001:14BA:4612:DC00:3D1C:461A:2793:97D5 (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a aftermath section and to keep the bullet points In the Results 2001:14BA:4612:DC00:3D1C:461A:2793:97D5 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just keep the bullet points IranSlayer (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We dont need an new section. Leave it like this 31.201.179.84 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your proposed addition is good (with references) as a lead in to the aftermath section.Smallchief (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * see look, 2001:14BA:4612:DC00:3D1C:461A:2793:97D5 (talk) agrees with me Ali36800p (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody here was born yesterday. You should retract this nonsense before somebody files a WP:SPI. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposed addition is pretty good though "The US forces withdrew in 2011, and the Iraqi government reclaimed all land occupied by US and Coalition forces in Iraq" might be revised. While the objective of the Coalition of the Willing in 2003 was to invade and occupy Iraq, and remove the Hussein government, the role by the end of the war was probably not one of occupation nor one where the Iraqi government reclaimed land? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "resumed control of"? Furius (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, aftermath should describe what happened after the conflict (e.g. after December 2011). One of the direct result is Iraqi insurgency. If this is correct, it should be reflected in this section.--Oloddin (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your help in refining the proposal! Incorporating some feedback from the above comments, here's a second draft.

How does this look? I'm not 100% on the phrasing of the last sentence, so any thoughts are appreciated. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the last sentence read: Upon the withdrawal of US forces in 2011 insurgency became more active. As I understand things, once occupied, elections were held and the multi-national force assumed a role of ensuring internal security (peacekeeping) and supporting the elected government to assume that role (training). With the withdrawal in 2011, the elected government became fully responsible for internal security. These things are a matter for what precedes the aftermath. The pertinent point is that the insurgency became more active subsequent to the withdrawal. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 2003:E3:573B:9F00:A8DD:B845:1793:531 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs do not make a right. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to take a bet on how many IPs and accounts will show up to make their first ever edit to this page? My money is on at least 15 by the end of the year. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We do seem to have a few SP IP's fetching up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. This leaves the Iraqi land falling back under Iraqi control implicit, but I'm comfortable with that. Thanks for the feedback; that phrasing feels much better to me. I expect we'll keep tweaking the language even after the paragraph makes it into the article, but I appreciate the help in getting it presentable first! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to leave that point implicit. If the Iraqi elections in 2005 are an important part of the aftermath, then so too is the resumption of full control over the legitimate use of force. So, I think I'd prefer "Upon the withdrawal of US forces in 2011, the Iraqi government became fully responsible for internal security and the insurgency became more active." Furius (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The first three sentences look a little redundant, because they repeat what is described in the previous sections.--Oloddin (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think that is the point. If the infobox is sending readers to the aftermath section, we can't expect that readers will already have read the intervening sections. Furius (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Aftermath" by definition means something after the event. The aftermath of the invasion itself is already described in this article, in the aftermath section of the invasion article, and we also have a separate article Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011). Oloddin (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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 85.145.156.35 (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Result
who should we put for the victor? Ali36800p (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who do RS say won? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * who is RS? Ali36800p (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * wp:rs, reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * oh i don't know then Ali36800p (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * What has that to do with a war that had ended? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * it was the result Ali36800p (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * oh, you want more sources?? buckle up... Ali36800p (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * How about you find a source that supports the edit you want to make [], or accept you do not have one? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * no, i do Ali36800p (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * i cant quote more if you want Ali36800p (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * , 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)
 * 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:
 * Have the infobox read: "See aftermath", per Cinderella157
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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 <
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * so which points do you want me to remove? Ali36800p (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All of them. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I do think we should remove all the bullet points in the "result" field, on the following rationale:
 * It's so busy right now, that readers are unlikely to use it
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , this would be a good course., 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)
 * the bullet points in the results are already simple enough Ali36800p (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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


 * 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)

It would appear that this has been resolved by a block being imposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think that both actually can be used.--Oloddin (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * then why dont we just put Inconclusive 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Think* not thing, my bad 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * Thank you. Policy based arguments should represent the consensus. Let's see how things go. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)