Talk:United States Forces – Iraq

Size simplification
I deleted sizes from previous dates because they looked quite unsignificant.--Ricky id (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not do this without moving the information elsewhere in the article. Please do not simply delete information, especially when it's sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Role beyond 2011
There is a separate section on this topic immediately after the withdrawal timelines section. Therefore the statement that such a policy discussion is ongoing within Iraq in the withdrawal timelines section adds no content. 83.253.2.105 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Subcommands
A possible discussion of subcommands, if such a section is necessary, should be properly written in an encyclopedic style and properly referenced. Wordings such as "appear to be" are not encyclopedic. Therefore I suggest that the two such written paragraphs be removed. 83.253.2.105 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Made edits in accordance with consensus. 83.253.2.105 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not in accordance with consensus. How many other military formation articles do not discuss the subformations/units of the formation concerned? If you don't like the word 'appears,' change it. The material is entirely encyclopaedic; the composition of USF-I is a core topic of the article. Reverted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, both sentences were properly referenced - DO NOT DELETE SOURCED INFORMATION. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of section 'Possible role beyond 2011'
I strongly object to the removal of this section since it is of great interest for the subject of the article, USF-I. 83.253.2.105 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy. The reason I moved - not removed - the section to Military of Iraq was that the section does not address USF-I specifically. By 2011 the command may have changed its name again. The section is not actually on USF-I but speculation about future US-Iraqi military presence. The sentence you removed in the last 24 hours was the linking sentence, linking the USF-I article to where the material had been moved to. I'm quite happy to wait a while, say a week, for you to find material on USF-I itself staying on beyond 2011, but if nothing's been found by then, I've going to remove the material from this article, as it is already covered at Military of Iraq and is better placed there. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Buckshot06, I strongly disagree. The section is of fundamental interest to the topic of this article. Since there is not consensus on the talk page, Wikipedia policy states that the section cannot be removed. For your information, I happen to be the author of both this article and the Iraqi security forces article. Joakimekstrom (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your input Joakimekstrom. Would you mind pointing me at the WP policy in question? I've never heard of that up until now. But in view of two oppose-ees, I'll leave it. Would you also like to clarify what you mean by being 'author' of the Iraqi security forces article? That one, unlike this one, has had a very large number of editors, and you will probably have noticed most of the recent edits have been by me. Which sections / at what times did you work on it? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all. If you look at the revision from November 19, I have written every paragraph except the first two of the History section. I chose the pictures and created the structure, and also kept the article up to date for three or so years. Hope that answers your question. Joakimekstrom (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbers estimates
I'd like to see estimates of the total numbers of US troops that have served in Iraq. I'm not sure where to find such information, but it seems very relevant to the page's subject. 209.6.85.90 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)MBVECO