User:Bertus96/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Sectarian violence in Iraq


 * Article Evaluation
 * Although this article provides a good historical overview of sectarianism in Iraq, there are various equity gaps: a lot of focus is paid to sectarianism in the colonial period and under Ba'ath rule, whereas the part on sectarian violence following the US invasion is very concise. Furthermore, the article focuses on a few key events that show sectarianism, whereas other key events in colonial and Ba'ath history, that point to the opposite, are not mentioned.
 * There are also some fallacies in certain arguments made in the article:
 * 'The [Iraq-Iran] war was also fought on religious grounds.' This assertion is then illustrated by an example of the Shi'a choosing to support Saddam Hussain. The illustration does thus not support the argument. Furthermore, Saddam Hussain did actively try to discourage sectarian identities during this war. Attempts for a Shi'a unity were made, but this did not work because many Shi'a Iraqis viewed themselves as being different from Iran and supported Iraqi nationalism. The article ignores this fact.
 * In the part on Kurdish political parties being accused by Saddam Hussain of working together with the Iranians, the author makes it seem like this was a false accusation. Although this is partially true, there are also clear events that point towards an undermining of the Iraqi state by Kurdish nationalists. At it is read now, this issue is written in a biased form in favour of the Kurds.
 * The Shi'a uprising following the Gulf War was also initiated by a call from the U.S. president. This is mentioned nowhere. Furthermore, the uprising is presented as a purely Shi'a affair, whereas uprisings did also take place in the Kurdish north.
 * About a quarter of the references refers to the book State of Repression: Iraq under Saddam Hussain by Lisa Blaydes. This is too much reliance on one specific source. Various books and articles have been written on Saddam Hussain's Iraq so this reliance does not represent a good comprehension of the available literature on the topic.
 * The part on sectarian violence following the US invasion is far too concise. It is in this period that a real sectarian civil war broke out. Such an important event cannot be missed on this page.
 * Intermingled use of both the concept Shias and Shi'ites: why? No clarity on when to use what form?
 * Various spelling errors.
 * The second paragraph of the lead is not referred to later on in the text. Furthermore, I would argue that this reference to old conflicts that happened far before the modern time is misleading in that sectarianism in Iraq is a phenomenon mostly associated with modern developments. If this paragraph is to be included, it should be referred to under a seperate heading.


 * Sources
 * "The Consolidation of Authoritarian Rule in Syria and Iraq: The Regimes of Hafiz al-Asad and Saddam Husayn." In A History of the Modern Middle East, 5th ed., edited by Cleveland, William L. and Martin Bunton. 414-437. Boulder: Westview Press, 2013.
 * Marozzi, Justin. Baghdad: City of Peace, City of Blood. UK: Penguin, 2014.
 * "Iraqi Tribes in the Land of Jihad." In Tribes and Global Jihadism, edited by Collombier Viriginie and Olivier Roy. 15-32. London: Hurst & Company, 2017.
 * Tripp, Charles. "The Ba'th and the rule of Saddam Hussain 1968-2003." In A History of Iraq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Iraqi Civil War (2006–2008)


 * Article Evaluation
 * I believe that this article is quite weak and does not provide the information needed to the reader. Furthermore, the information is very much U.S.-focused with little mention of Iraqi sources and perspectives. Most important is to add how the conflict developed and what the motivations were of the conflict to start in the first place. Furthermore it would be of great benefit to re-visit the title of this page.
 * The lead of the article is quite extensive compared to the length of the overall article. Furthermore, the lead is full of numerical facts which makes it hard to read. I believe it would be better to add a seperate subheading on numbers.
 * The added value of the subheading 'ethno-sectarian composition' is not clear when reading the article. This should be clarified or it should not be provided as a seperate heading.
 * The heading participants does not match the named belligerents in the infobox. Furthermore, the information provided here is very concise. Why did these various groups participate in the civil war? What were there motivations? Although we are provided with an overview of the main tactics employed during the civil war, it is not clear how this conflict came into being. This is a serious shortcoming of the article in that it prevents a good understanding of why the civil war started and how it came into being.
 * I am missing references to sources under the subheading 'bomb and mortar attacks'. The numbers provided are not supported by any evidence.
 * References also missing under heading sub-heading of death squads.
 * The information on the used strategies by the various participants is mostly self-contained with little reference to other forms of violence. What is missing is a clear understanding of the development of the conflict. Slowly but surely more violent methods began to be used. What led to this escalation? Why and how? These questions are not answered.
 * The title of the page is problematic in that 61% of Iraqis would not agree with this designation. Yet, the author has decided to still name it a "civil war" because the US decided to do so. This is a major equity gap that weakens the article: why would we call it a civil war if those involved would not frame it as such?
 * Taking a look at the Talk page, I do believe that some very thoughtful comments are made regarding the article's place. If the information on this page remains as it is, it might be better to make it part of a larger page, e.g. Iraqi conflict (2003–present) or Iraq War. Regarding the main theme of this article, however, it could be an article in itself but then serious content will have to be added in order to provide a better understanding to the reader. This can be done by adding a timeline to show the conflict's development and by adding motives of the participants in order to understand how the conflict came about in the first place.


 * Sources
 * DeFronzo, James. The Iraq War: Origins and Consequences. Philadelphia: Westview Press, 2010.
 * Tripp, Charles. "The American occupation and the parliamentary republic." In A History of Iraq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * International Crisis Group. The Next Iraqi War? Sectarianism and Civil Conflict. Middle East Report no. 52. (February 27, 2006).

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Sons of Iraq


 * Article Evaluation
 * I do believe that the information provided in this article is of great importance in order to better understand the current power relations that are playing out in this part of Iraq and because of the effects these power relations have had on neighbouring regions in Syria. Furthermore, the Anbar Awakening was one of the few counterinsurgency moves employed by the US army that successfully dealt a blow to the rise of terrorism. My overall impression of the article is that it is missing some important information, especially on how the movement came into being and its rise, and that, at some times, the information is somewhat one-sided (US and Iraqi government focus). Here are some of my suggestions:
 * In my opinion, the lead of this article is too concise. This is also linked to the article's overall structure: in comparison to the attention that is paid to the movement's disbanding, there is very little information on how the movement came into being. Reasons of why tribal sheikhs decided to come together and collaborate with US forces are not mentioned except for one tribe (Albu Mahals) being pushed out of their territory by another tribe with links to AQI and the terrorism of AQI. Possible socio-economic motives and a changing stance of the US military are ignored. This harms a proper understanding of why and how the movement came to be.
 * The article contains no information on how it spread among other Sunni tribes in the Anbar province. Was it a large-scale movement, were only a few opportunistic tribes involved? And did these tribes cover extensive parts of the Anbar province or was there a specific geographical area within the Anbar province where the Sons of Iraq operated mostly?
 * Sources are missing under the subheading of Anbar Awakening. I do miss references in case of Sunni tribes working together with AQI to counter Shiite interests; AQI's terrorism prompting these same tribes to change their alliances; and most importantly, that the movement was "one of the shining symbols of counterinsurgency policy rhetoric".
 * I would argue for another title in line with 189.38.71.61 and Stiche's assertion that Anbar Awakening would better suit the content of the article since Sons of Iraq was only a part of the Anbar Awakening. The Anbar Awakening was a wider movement that existed for a longer period as described in this article.
 * Lastly, the disbanding of the Awakening Movement is very much focused on the policies of the government under Nouri al-Maliki. Although this is certainly a big part of the story, we should not forget that threats by other tribes and the rise of new terrorist groups, as well as the American troops' leaving of Iraq, benefitted to this disbanding. It was not a one-sided process, but also initiated on part of the tribes.


 * Sources
 * Marten, Kimberly. "It Takes Three: Washington, Baghdad, and the Sons of Iraq." In Warlords: Strong-arm Brokers in Weak States. Cornell University Press, 2012.
 * Montgomery, Gary W. and Timothy S. McWilliams, eds. Al-Anbar Awakening, vol. 2, From Insurgency to Counterinsurgency in Iraq, 2004-2009. Quantico: Marine Corps University, 2009.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Iraqi insurgency (2003–2011)


 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources