Talk:Iraq War

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think that both actually can be used.--Oloddin (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: then why dont we just put Inconclusive 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Think* not thing, my bad 2603:6010:1C00:325:4DB:B5B3:AB55:4592 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Result in infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. Policy based arguments should represent the consensus. Let's see how things go. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RFC Needed?

message: Per the above section, it sounds like it may be useful to migrate some of the infobox fields into the article body. The existing section solely examines Iraqi casualties. Therefore, I propose the addition of a subsection entitled Casualty Overview and, in it, three tables of the form: 
Forces	Killed	Missing/Captured	Wounded
Force1	X dead	Y missing       	Z Wounded
...   	...   	...             	...
Total 	XX    	YY              	ZZ
There would be one table each for Coalition, Iraqi, and civilian casualties. This would allow us to make a single, high-level figure for the "Casulaties" section of the infobox, provide more detail in a piped link, and also direct the reader toward the article on casualties if desired. We'll also need to revamp the citations currently used in infobox; currently it's a lot of tabulation of values with bare URLs, which I think we can do better on. 
Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to be a good place to start. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks for this. Two thoughts: (1) I'd be hesitant about taking too much out of the infobox; we should probably end up with more than "a single, high-level figure for the "Casualties" section of the infobox" (depending on exactly what you mean by that). (2) This work ought to take account of Casualties of the Iraq War and vice versa. Furius (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback! In order, (1) That's valid. I was thinking the casualties in the infobox would have something like, "Coalition-allied: X killed, Y Wounded", "Iraqui-allied: M killed, N wounded", and "See #Casualties" in a similar grouping to the current infobox. Is that still stripping out too much detail? (2) I agree emphatically. When I get more time, I might see about gathering some legitimate sources from that article to replace some of this mess. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like (2) will probably be a two-way process, so I applaud you for the undertaking! On (1) I agree that killed and wounded is enough. I think it would be important to keep the Iraqi security forces and Awakening separate, but that coalition and contractors can probably be merged, and that we should probably retain "detainees" on the insurgents' side. "Documented deaths from violence" can probably be reduced to a single range. "Statistical estimates" is tricky; getting rid of them entirely seems wrong, but the range of different estimates is so huge (151,000-1,033,000) and that range represents some very different methodologies. Furius (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at the Casualties of the Iraq War article, and oh boy. It also has some majorly messed up citations. I think you're right that it's going to be a two-way street. Given the subject matter of that article, I'm thinking I should start refining that one first, have the more detailed discussions there, and once we have some presentable sections, copy (with attribution) them over to this article. @Furius, would you be willing to take a look from time to time? I'm still pretty new at this, so I'd appreciate an experienced editor's eyes on it to help me avoid mistakes.EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these kinds of specific current event articles are often this. I'm absolutely happy to act as a sounding board as you improve the article (it's actually quite important that articles like this be reliable), but note that I'm in no way a subject expert, so it might also be worth dropping a line to the relevant wikiproject from time to time. Furius (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (what you say about your planned approach is very sensible, imo) Furius (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Table 

message: Who thought it was a good idea to oversimplify the infobox and remove most of the insurgent groups that were involved in the fighting? Somebody needs to reverse these changes. 78.170.229.162 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is wrong with the infobox now? 

message: Again, fixing a dash on an eISSN parameter in a citation causes an error message. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong with CS1