Talk: Iraq War

{{U|Ben Azura}}, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=next&oldid=1258311591 this edit], you would readd Ayad Allawi to the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. They were removed because they are not mentioned in the article - their inclusion is not supported by the article. A link is not a source. Also, WP:ONUS applies. If an edit is challenged, there is a burden to establish a consensus for inclusion - not just reinstate the challenged material. The material was initially removed with the edit summary: {{tq|Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article}}. Perhaps if you did not understand this (though it appears to be reasonably straight forward) you might have ask for an explanation at the TP. Also note, WP:BRD. It is appropriate to initiate a discussion when an edit is reverted - ie it is not WP:BRR. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:I added Allawi to the article. I thought you could explain if Allawi and Maliki qualify for being commanders for infobox purposes because technically it is during the "Post-Invasion" that they have any responsibility. If Allawi is removed I think Maliki should also be removed. Can you shed some light on this? Ben Azura (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::Here's how I see it: the Iraq entry should include anyone who held the office of Prime Minister of Iraq (which is the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi armed forces and thus is the appropriate office to represent Iraq) during the 2003-2011 period, excluding the Iraqi Governing Council period as it was subordinate to the CPA during that time. As such, following Saddam there are three possible candidates: Ayad Allawi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki pretty indisputably qualifies, and there are some weak arguments as to why the other two may not but I personally would include all three. If there's information that needs to be brought into the article in order to get there, it shouldn't be too hard to pull the appropriate sources from their respective articles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{U|Ben Azura}}, this article is about the war, which extends past the invasion. {{U|Swatjester}}, the guidance is clear. To be included in the infobox, the article needs to evidence they were key or significant. Usually this means more than just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Section update: $42 million in damages were awarded in November 2024 to former prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

See https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/14/baher_azmy_caci_guantanamo_lawsuit_torture 2600:1001:B128:A069:C805:F112:660F:A404 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}}

I request the word "fabricated" in the first sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed to "erroneous" or something similar (false, untrue). The NYT citation should also be removed.

Therefore the sentence would read "The primary justifications for the invasion centered around erroneous claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda"

My justifications are as follows: The citation used is an article primarily about Scott Ritter's conviction for child sex crimes so it's inappropriate for use here and it's presently the only cite in the lead. Furthermore it actually fails to support usage of the term "fabricated". The article doesn't say this. It quotes Ritter stating "The reality is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and there was no active program. The Bush administration took a decision to go to war based on the pretense of WMDs, and it was a lie."

He calls it a lie which is different to stating that it was deliberately fabricated. Most importantly, we shouldn't be using Ritter's opinion as fact here in the lead. It would be undue. Erroneous or false is a more accurate and an uncontroversial description of the WMD claims and it's a fair summary of the article. 78.146.11.249 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. Ultraodan (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Iraq War|answered=yes}}

Article is too long shorten it. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like it would make sense 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:What'd he do? Remsense ‥ 论 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::PM of Australia during invasion, makes sense since bush and Blair are listed. 147.9.2.202 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:More importantly, what does the article tell us he did? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)