Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predicted effects of invading Iraq/2004 Nomination

''Previously listed on VfD. Delisted as sources have been provided. These need to be worked into the article''.
 * Predicted effects of invading Iraq Attempting to 'predict' the effects of something is "primary research" (see What Wikipedia is not #10). (The page was also written by a user that has subsequently been banned.) Since Iraq has been invaded this page is now pointless. Maximus Rex 11:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the claims can be specifically sourced. "I heard a rumour that someone might have said X" is not good enough for an encyclopedia article. See Verifiability. Onebyone 16:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Presdumably there will be a history article on this, and therefore musings on "predictions" is political POV. Not for Wikipedia - Marshman 19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete, see my comment above. Pfortuny 22:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, potentially useful with attributions.&mdash;Eloquence
 * Delete, moot --Jiang
 * Delete. Encylopedias should not have articles about the future. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. But remove all material which is not sourced. [Fred Bauder]
 * None of it is sourced. Maximus Rex 15:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is usefull information in this article. Let's see what is not sourced. User:Anthere
 * Why do we need someone's old speculations on what 'might happen', when instead all we should report is what has happened? Maximus Rex 01:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Because it *might* inform the one (reading this article) who supported the invasion on the reasons why *others* did not support it. And this is *not* in our current articles on the topic. And *this* is information :-) Don't you think that understanding why some people disagreed with the war *before* it occurred is valid and meaningfull information in itself ? Are you suggesting all what is on Wikipedia is only what *really* occured ? and never what people think or believe or dream of ? Really Maximus ? :-) PomPom
 * We have several pages on Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is about the deletion of an article that made predictions (without sources) before the war occurred. Maximus Rex
 * Precisely. The articles we currently have on the topic are: Popular opposition to war on Iraq. It claims to explain why many people were opposed to the war. Practicaly, it starts by explaining that  Some have speculated that western European countries were against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment.. Which is indeed one argument. Perhaps a bit americano-centred ? Actually, reading the full article leaves a certain feeling of bias reading, and to my opinion, the opinion that a good bunch of the arguments I heard a year ago, are not listed...Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq only list the for and the against. That is not very informative about why there were against and why they are for...Global protests against war on Iraq is about the protests, not the reasons about the protests...plus a special article about the christian church position, Catholic Church against war on Iraq, which I suppose required a unique article...And that is about it. Perhaps 2 small paragraphs is a not very visible article. In any case, a rather ridiculous article, compared to the main argument given by the Bush administration at that time. You will find it at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (on which I spent quite a while :-)). I suggest that we try to provide a minimum of balance on this encyclopedia between the arguments of the pro and the ones of the anti. Removing the arguments against, heard then, while keeping the arguments for the war, heard then, (was any weapon of mass destruction used during the war ? is not a good idea....Second, you answered to Fred, that no argument listed was sourced. True. As no argument given in Popular opposition to war on Iraq is sourced either. Still, they are widely accepted as correct. I think many of the arguments given here are so obvious that they do not need sources either. I agree this may not be the case for all arguments. Why do you not list those you really think need source, as you doubt a reasonable number of people used these arguments to oppose the invasion ?
 * If the information is useful in determining why people opposed this, then shouldn't this be merged with an article on opposition? --Jiang 01:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I am unsure. the article lists both arguments for and arguments against. The ones for are at the top. The ones against below. It was meant for balance. And it is a rather long article.
 * Delete. This article presents a list of unattributed opinions and predictions. As much as I try to read it, I see it as a rant. Kingturtle 06:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. The fact that the article contains this line: "More effects are predicted by opponents of the plan than those favoring it" &mdash; as if the number of predictions the "author" could come up with was some sort of valid metric &mdash; puts it into the "rant" category in my opinion. Delete - Marshman 04:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since the whole article is presented as a list of unattributed opinions, and that most people here thinks sources should be provided to support keeping the article as unformative as *source* of information about *why* some people feared the war and opposed to it, I have quickly made a few searches on google to find some sources. It may be that some are not receivable, but I think a bunch of them are. I also think a certain number of these predicted effects do not even need sources (such as the fact some people opposed to the war, because they thought there would be humanitarian consequences). I also think that some have arguments and sources in wikipedia itself (such as the british letter). Anyway, these are some sources I found. I tried to limit myself to english references. I apologies in advance if some of the sources are wrong :-)


 * http://english.pravda.ru/region/2003/03/21/44768.html (I think this is should provide basic source for the ecological threats. These were mentionned as predicted effects as arguments against the war)
 * http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2003/02/11/43273.html (some references about the fear for diplomatic consequences)
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03306/235829.stm (might have a couple arguments on some predicted effects)
 * http://www.princeton.edu/~lisd/amin.html (great resource for political reasons, predictions and fear over what could occur)
 * http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul43.html (some economical arguments not listed in the article I think)
 * http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm (a nice set of arguments against, for fear of some effects)
 * http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.HTM about the electromagnetic threats
 * http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898 this one is interesting, but there may be objections for using it as a source
 * http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911555.html about tolerance of wmd in the hand of some nations


 * For the role of the internet in mass media and forming public opinion, several articles from Wikipedia and desinfopedia should suffice as sources :-) (media manipulation perhaps ?


 * credibility of photo and audio and video evidence vs. forgeries or fakes : we may suggest the example of the statue, or some pictures of supposed citizen, which were seen on images from different cities.
 * http://www.udf.org/presse/interviews/fb_lacroix_260203.html about fear of diplomatic implications (Bayrou is an important french politician)
 * http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/515/515p17.htm about worries on Kurdistan as an independent region within Iraq
 * http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/01-25-03/international_2.asp about fear on tourism drop as an argument against the war

ant

I've delisted this from VfD now as sources have been provided but have added an accuracy dispute notice until these are worked into the article as without each part being sourced there is no way of knowing which are accurate and which were made up by the original author of this article. Angela. 22:51, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)