Talk:Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)

message: I am listing a few options for the title here, and invite everyone to add to it as you see fit (each option includes related variations). Maybe we can find whatever is least objectionable to the most people. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added another alternative to your list.  After "Splitting the article in two, before and after the official, formal handover", I added a variant: "Splitting the article in two but with overlapping time frames". JamesMLane 04:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Geo Swan 16:11, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
*"Occupation" can be POV if there's a border dispute.  I wouldn't refer to German presence in Alsace before World War I as an occupation, because the area was claimed as part of Germany.  That doesn't apply to Iraq.  The country was being governed by indisputably foreign military forces.  That's an occupation.  There might be some dispute about when the occupation ends -- at some point, Bush will claim that the troops who invaded Iraq are no longer occupiers, but are there as honored guests of the Iraqi government.  We can deal with that by describing all incidents of the occupation, including the winding down, and having a separate article (with overlapping time frames) for the establishment of the first post-Saddam government. JamesMLane 04:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: could we make it "Post-Saddam Hussein transition", then ? I know that this will make it a little bit longer, but calling the former president of Iraq "Saddam" instead of "Saddam Hussein" is so typical of the present US government that I'd feel uncomfortably like parotting them (If you look at the discours of Bush I during the first Gulf War, he said "Saddam Hussein", for instance...). It's not even a question of whether "Saddam" is derogatory, but rather like the argument that it'd be better to keep some distance from typical wording of the era (see LTI and that sort of things). Rama 11:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, thank you Maurren ! Rama 13:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thanks.  This approach is considerably more constructive.--Pharos 19:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You're welcome! Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title options

message: I'd like to suggest that we just give short comments on the options, to see where we might have the most overlap. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Geo Swan 16:11, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
*"Occupation" can be POV if there's a border dispute.  I wouldn't refer to German presence in Alsace before World War I as an occupation, because the area was claimed as part of Germany.  That doesn't apply to Iraq.  The country was being governed by indisputably foreign military forces.  That's an occupation.  There might be some dispute about when the occupation ends -- at some point, Bush will claim that the troops who invaded Iraq are no longer occupiers, but are there as honored guests of the Iraqi government.  We can deal with that by describing all incidents of the occupation, including the winding down, and having a separate article (with overlapping time frames) for the establishment of the first post-Saddam government. JamesMLane 04:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: could we make it "Post-Saddam Hussein transition", then ? I know that this will make it a little bit longer, but calling the former president of Iraq "Saddam" instead of "Saddam Hussein" is so typical of the present US government that I'd feel uncomfortably like parotting them (If you look at the discours of Bush I during the first Gulf War, he said "Saddam Hussein", for instance...). It's not even a question of whether "Saddam" is derogatory, but rather like the argument that it'd be better to keep some distance from typical wording of the era (see LTI and that sort of things). Rama 11:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, thank you Maurren ! Rama 13:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thanks.  This approach is considerably more constructive.--Pharos 19:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You're welcome! Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on options

message: *Vague or euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq, 2003-2005

message: *POV. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Geo Swan 16:11, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
*"Occupation" can be POV if there's a border dispute.  I wouldn't refer to German presence in Alsace before World War I as an occupation, because the area was claimed as part of Germany.  That doesn't apply to Iraq.  The country was being governed by indisputably foreign military forces.  That's an occupation.  There might be some dispute about when the occupation ends -- at some point, Bush will claim that the troops who invaded Iraq are no longer occupiers, but are there as honored guests of the Iraqi government.  We can deal with that by describing all incidents of the occupation, including the winding down, and having a separate article (with overlapping time frames) for the establishment of the first post-Saddam government. JamesMLane 04:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation of Iraq

message: *Clear and neutral. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005

message: *Euphamistic. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: could we make it "Post-Saddam Hussein transition", then ? I know that this will make it a little bit longer, but calling the former president of Iraq "Saddam" instead of "Saddam Hussein" is so typical of the present US government that I'd feel uncomfortably like parotting them (If you look at the discours of Bush I during the first Gulf War, he said "Saddam Hussein", for instance...). It's not even a question of whether "Saddam" is derogatory, but rather like the argument that it'd be better to keep some distance from typical wording of the era (see LTI and that sort of things). Rama 11:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Hussein transition

message: *Makes sense to me, although we'd still need to decide what to call the second period. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article in two, before and after the official, formal handover

message: *A variant of the above.  One article would cover the role in post-invasion Iraq of the occupying troops, what they did, the changes in their numbers, etc., including, presumably, an eventual departure.  The other article, perhaps something like "Government of Iraq after Saddam Hussein", would cover the development of Iraqi authority.  It would recount the formation of the governing council, the formal handover, the 2005 elections, etc., without endorsing a POV about the significance of these events.  The division would be by subject, leaving no need to try to pick a date on which the "occupation" suddenly ended and "democratic Iraq" (or at least "Iraqi-ruled Iraq") began. JamesMLane 04:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article in two but with overlapping time frames

message: *Wordy at best. Maurreen 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you Maurren ! Rama 13:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thanks.  This approach is considerably more constructive.--Pharos 19:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You're welcome! Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S.-led coalition presence in Iraq, 2003-2005

message: *It's factual; it makes no comment regarding the coalition's legal status in Iraq, as "occupation" does; it doesn't focus on American presence and therefore doesn't have an anti-American ring to it; and the lack of dates makes it flexible. SlimVirgin 10:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
*My main objection is that the title doesn't make clear that the article does not cover the invasion. Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition presence in Iraq

message: *"First" by itself won't work; makes it sound like Iraq is a newly constituted entity. Maurreen 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation and first government of Iraq

message: *Wordy, could be unclear concerning other occupations. Maurreen 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation and transitional government of Iraq

message: *Could be any invasion, any time. Maurreen 18:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-invasion Iraq

message: When I started the section on title options, I was unsure whether it's better to structure the comments by dividing them according to the title options or dividing by according to the views of different individuals. I am still unsure.
But just for clarification, so far my view is this:
*I prefer "post-invasion" or splitting the article.
*I oppose "occupation" for the overall title.
*I will accept any of the other options given so far. Maurreen 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary by person

message: I found this excellent post from Gulo in the archives, which I'm reproducing below, because it's still relevant, though I don't know whether Gulo supported or opposed the name change. SlimVirgin 23:25, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
===Occupation defined by International Humanitarian Law===
There is an occupation when: 
#There is an international armed conflict
#A foreign military force has made an incursion on enemy territory
#This force is exerting any form of control over the population of that territory.
When does occupation end?
Occupation ends whenever one of the conditions of occupation is no longer met. 
1. The international armed conflict has ended. 
:An agreement has been signed between the parties at conflict bringing to an end the armed conflict. In general, such agreement will involve the withdrawal of the occupying forces. There may be situations, however, where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g. U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation.
2. Foreign military forces have withdrawn from enemy territory or are no longer exerting control over the population of that territory.
:In case of an on-going conflict, the withdrawal of the forces also brings an end of the applicability of the law of occupation. It implies, however, that the enemy power has regained control over its population and territory. The mere withdrawal of troops from certain conquered places does not end or suspend the application of IHL rules if it leaves a vacuum of authority. The control of the territory and the legal duties involved remain in effect until the front lines have stabilized. Evidently, in the course of a military campaign where front lines can move back and forth many times and responsibility over the territory and population is unclear, the implementation of such rules can become impractical. However, in the case of the collapse of enemy forces, as in Iraq, the law of occupation applies to territories and populations entering into contact with invading forces, and remains applicable regardless of further tactical deployment of troops. In other words, there is no vacuum of authority or responsibility once troops have moved into a given territory. Obligations for the maintenance of law and order as well as all other obligations pertaining to occupying powers are applicable to the coalition forces as soon as they drive Iraqi forces out of civilian areas. 
In both cases: 
:- The hand-over of administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the occupying power of its obligation;
:- The set-up of government structures by opposition groups with the continuing military presence of coalition forces does not fulfil the conditions for the end of the occupation. If changes to the Constitution are required, it can only be amended under its own provisions and procedures or, in exceptional cases, under applicable international law and procedures. Agreements concluded by the U.S. or the U.K. with local authorities of the occupied territory or changes introduced by coalition forces to Iraqi institutions or to the government of Iraq cannot deprive protected persons from the protection offered by IHL (see Article 47 of Fourth Geneva Convention);
:- In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention). In addition, Protocol I contemplates the extension of the full application of occupation law until the termination of occupation. 
GuloGuloGulo 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
What is "Protocol I"? Philip Baird Shearer 01:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip, see Protocol I. SlimVirgin 01:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
* * * Is it safe to say now that the US President is not "Bush" (and Iraqi oil leases have gone to other than American countries) that Iraq is no more an "Occupied Nation" than Germany, Japan, Korea, or the Philippines?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.216.72 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation issues

message: There is an occupation when: 
#There is an international armed conflict
#A foreign military force has made an incursion on enemy territory
#This force is exerting any form of control over the population of that territory.
When does occupation end?
Occupation ends whenever one of the conditions of occupation is no longer met. 
1. The international armed conflict has ended. 
:An agreement has been signed between the parties at conflict bringing to an end the armed conflict. In general, such agreement will involve the withdrawal of the occupying forces. There may be situations, however, where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g. U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation.
2. Foreign military forces have withdrawn from enemy territory or are no longer exerting control over the population of that territory.
:In case of an on-going conflict, the withdrawal of the forces also brings an end of the applicability of the law of occupation. It implies, however, that the enemy power has regained control over its population and territory. The mere withdrawal of troops from certain conquered places does not end or suspend the application of IHL rules if it leaves a vacuum of authority. The control of the territory and the legal duties involved remain in effect until the front lines have stabilized. Evidently, in the course of a military campaign where front lines can move back and forth many times and responsibility over the territory and population is unclear, the implementation of such rules can become impractical. However, in the case of the collapse of enemy forces, as in Iraq, the law of occupation applies to territories and populations entering into contact with invading forces, and remains applicable regardless of further tactical deployment of troops. In other words, there is no vacuum of authority or responsibility once troops have moved into a given territory. Obligations for the maintenance of law and order as well as all other obligations pertaining to occupying powers are applicable to the coalition forces as soon as they drive Iraqi forces out of civilian areas. 
In both cases: 
:- The hand-over of administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the occupying power of its obligation;
:- The set-up of government structures by opposition groups with the continuing military presence of coalition forces does not fulfil the conditions for the end of the occupation. If changes to the Constitution are required, it can only be amended under its own provisions and procedures or, in exceptional cases, under applicable international law and procedures. Agreements concluded by the U.S. or the U.K. with local authorities of the occupied territory or changes introduced by coalition forces to Iraqi institutions or to the government of Iraq cannot deprive protected persons from the protection offered by IHL (see Article 47 of Fourth Geneva Convention);
:- In all cases, the law of occupation applies until one year after the general close of military operations, and even beyond that date, basic rules continue to apply if the occupying power exercises the functions of government in the territory (see Article 6 (3) of the Fourth Geneva Convention). In addition, Protocol I contemplates the extension of the full application of occupation law until the termination of occupation. 
GuloGuloGulo 20:07, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
What is "Protocol I"? Philip Baird Shearer 01:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip, see Protocol I. SlimVirgin 01:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
* * * Is it safe to say now that the US President is not "Bush" (and Iraqi oil leases have gone to other than American countries) that Iraq is no more an "Occupied Nation" than Germany, Japan, Korea, or the Philippines?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.216.72 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation defined by International Humanitarian Law

message: Just a heads up, I have changed the article to consistently use "insurgent" and "insurgency" (or in some cases "guerilla", if that is more appropriate).  This is a fairly significant edit that may make some people unhappy.  Per the vote to move Iraqi resistance to Iraqi insurgency, insurgency is the preferred term in most cases.  The pros and cons of each term were extensively discussed there.  ObsidianOrder 03:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  resistance -> insurgency 

message: Page moved to new title "Bush occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005" analogous with "Nazi occupation of Norway". Wikipedia needs to treat all countries in the same way. If you disagree with titles like "Nazi occupation", "Zionist occupation", "Republican occupation"/"Bush occupation", please voice your opinion. Courage 20:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I coinsider this as vandalism, especially considering that you didn't bother to ask anyone about it first.  I undid the move.  Please don't do this again.  If you can pass a vote on Wikipedia:Requested moves with a significant majority, then you may move a well-known (and controversial) page.  I for one will strongly oppose such a move, because the historical situations you refer to are in no way similar. ObsidianOrder 22:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Courage's omve is very likely to fall under the terms of WP:POINT. Rama 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New title Bush occupation of Iraq, 2003-2005 

message: I highly dispute your sources stating that U.S. soldiers have fired on ambulances which are supposedly backed by "eyewitness" accounts. These sources frequently exaggerate U.S. and civilian casualties and show no neutrality on the war. I suspect source number 43 is a joke. It claims that 27 American soldiers have been kidnapped but that of course no major news organizations have reported it. The website hears this from I quote "name best not to supply without permission". Also, this is what the website urges it's readers to do:
What to Do 
This is an appeal to the anti-war movement, to the peace movement, 
eco-action movement, animal rights movement, anti-fascists, everybody 
active, everybody who can respond, can call a demo, can organise a 
protest, an office occupation, an embassy storming, a road blockade, mass 
civil disobedience, industrial shut-down, work-place occupation, 
solidarity work stoppage, blockade the US Embassy, Fairford Military Base 
action campaign – what’s taking off at Fairford? Are B52s being deployed? 
Shannon Peace Camp protestors – are there new movements at Shannon? We 
need to address this, we need to resist this. We become the solidarity 
resistance in Iraq by taking action in our neighbourhoods and in our 
cities. Print up a leaflet. Paint up a banner. Take to the streets. Only 
a small group can make a change. Show people in Iraq that we are standing 
by them. 700 more British troops have been flown in to quell the uprising 
in the South. No Pasaran. Take to the embassies, the bases, the US 
interests, the streets. 
The website then lists the addresses of U.S. embassies and air bases in the U.K. But the most important similarity of all these websites is that none of them ever claim to have seen an ambulance being shot at by U.S. troops. They hear this through random Iraqis they meet on the street. There is a picture of a shot up ambulance but absolutely no proof of who shot at it. Thus, these sources are not eyewitnesses. These claims are immeasurably hurtful to the United States and should be backed with large amounts of physical evidence and eyewitness accounts. It should be rembered that extraordinary claims require extraordinay proof. This particular sentence should be removed immediately or backed up by actual evidence. IndieJones 01:01, 2 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did you find these sources? 

message: Does anyone else think that years should be added to the dates? For example in the Armed opposition section, it isn't always clear whether events take place in 2004, 2005, etc. 17:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I updated the "Some coalition members leave Iraq" section, I had a hard time doing it because the years were not there. Believe it or not, some of the dates actually refered it events in 2004 in the future tense. So, I added the proper years for each date in that section. Hopefully the same will be done for the rest of the article. Bayerischermann 18:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add years to dates 

message: A reference was removed without explanation.  It has been re-added, as it was used to add content to the article on July 28, 2005.  Per Wikipedia policy, a reference must be provided when information is "gleaned from an external souce."  As that is the case here, to remove the reference would put the article in copyright violation.  Uriah923 17:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference re-added 

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: Or it is hidden so well that I couldn't find it in 10 minutes of reading this article. I am reffering to Iraqis attititude and opinions towards the war and reconstruction efforts. Do they support it or not? Were there any surveys conducted? Sources, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing vital piece of info 

message: i see there's a worry about the length of the article, and cutting it off at 2005 would be a lazy solution to this, but sure it would make more epistemological sense to change the name to have 2006 in the title and find other ways of splitting off sections into specialised articles. Boud 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006  ? s/2005/2006/g ? 

message: Please stop deleting the link to the "arguments against an early withdrawl" or somethign like that. It smacks of POV pushing, regardless of whether that's the original intent. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and consistently reverting others edits to keep it off the page is not good form. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a valid viewpoint, but the subject of this article is not "American political opinion," or "U. S. speculation regarding the possible future course of events in Iraq." The link is one blogger's opinion, and it itself does not cite sources. It does not go deeper than our article goes, or add detail to area where our article is sketchy. Quite the contrary, it is a brief and opinionated summary of material that is already treated better and in more depth in this article. Therefore, it adds nothing useful to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link. 

message: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
:I do not know who added the hyperlink, but the link has broken.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documents recovered from the former Iraqi government begin to be releaesed to the public 

message: Shouldn't this page be called by its proper name," Operation Iraqi Freedom"?
*No. That's not NPOV, but instead a very American slant on history. --zenazn 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not Have a soft re-direct with that title? Like it or not, America's president Bush caled the initial invasion operation Iraqi Freedom, di he not.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Iraqi Freedom

message: There is a poll going on at the Iraq War article that is related to this article. You can add your vote here:  -- Mr. Tibbs 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq War]] Poll

message: I don't know if or where this would go, but according to the Washington Post, al-Qaeda in Iraq and other related groups have declared a new republic in parts of Iraq. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Islamic repulic declared in Iraq

message: It says 21 nations have forces in Iraq, and goes on to list 22, so something needs to change; this includes Bosnia and Herzegovina as a nation, which I'm fairly sure is defunct, so is it just Bosnia? or both? that would make 23 nations. I also think this number shnould include Fiji - is there a specific reason it doesnt? 88.109.49.215 03:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation (international forces) 

message: Does anyone else think that the US detention of the staff of the Iranian consulate in Irbil is worth a section?  To me the attack on the consulate is pretty heavy stuff, the Iranians may not be accredited diplomats (ie they may not have diplomatic immunity) but they are nonetheless representatives of their country.  This seems to be an important escalation.  Check out 
216.191.239.82 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New subsection 

message: Someone put this stat: "When asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace is opposed to US occupation and want US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis support attacking US troops" on the criticisms of the Iraq War page.  I didn't think it belonged, and wanted to move it to a more appropriate place.  I thought there might be a page on Iraqi public opinion, but I couldn't find one. I also don't see any specific discussion of Iraqi public opinion in this article.  Is there a place where this information is contained that I am missing?  Is a new page warranted?  Any comments are welcome.  --Mackabean 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi public opinion 

message: Why don't we put an Infobox Military Conflict here? Kermanshahi 08:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Military Conflict

message: As there is no 2007 information in this article, I'm moving it to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006.  When the 2007 information in included from, e.g., Iraq War, please move it back. ←BenB4 05:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 missing 

message: This article is a strong B-class article.  I would suggest submitting it for a peer review and then to an A-class review at WP:MILHIST.  After passing through those two forums, it should stand a much better chance at passing FAC. Cla68 07:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The re-titling debate didn't seem to finish, I hope no-one minds me trying to breathe life into it again here.
FWIW I don't think there's a problem with having a long title - it's a natural consequence of trying to carve up all the world's knowledge into article-sized pieces.  As someone else suggested, "Mission accomplished" and the swearing-in of the first elected officials in 2006 provide natural boundary points. — ciphergoth 15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's have a long title 

message: This seems important enough to at least mention briefly in the article. From Democracy Now!, June 5, 2008:
 Badagnani (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI2DnPd09rI
This is the man who has said this, but in the article, Patrick Cockburn delineates one source. An Iraqi source is listed, and if that source was given identity, then I would be able to check if it was paraphrased, but the fact the source isn't identified doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS, I'm afraid.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "cnn121106" :
** Suicide bomber attacks police recruitment center CNN, November 12, 2006.
** "http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/12/iraq.main/index.html Suicide bomber attacks police recruitment center]". CNN, November 12, 2006.
DumZiBoT (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I deleted the out of date section of coalition countries who have withdrawn and replaced it with a list of remaining countries, as the referenced article on multinational force in Iraq is much more up to date and clearly written.  Comments? Czolgolz (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaltion withdrawals 

message: Looking at the discussions at the top, I support this page should be reanamed as Coaltion occupation of Iraq, very clear title and avoid adding the date. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Occupation sounds like the USA was trying to remove th eIraq regieme, with others support, as part of a plan to grab Iraq for itself. This title would be very prejudiced and overtly political, though, it has always been described by reference as the Iraq invasion. Now, Obama is saying the article of the Iraq war is "post-invasion", hence the- rather small- change of title. Invasion is better than occupation.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaltion occupation 

message: Why is the introduction and first paragraph of the first section crossed out? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross out 

message: This is a phase of the war. Since in article Iraq War, it says the war is over on Aug 19 2010 with the last US combat troops leaving the country. We should rename this article to as Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2010. Qajar (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it over? change title?

message: What are the two pictures of US troops and equipment doing at the start of the article? They look more like some kind of Hi, Mom! postcards. I do not think they add any value to this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They show soldiers in the theater, don't they, why not add them.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hi, Mom!'' postcards 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: I am raising this issue here because Talk:U.S. occupation of Iraq redirects to this discussion page.
After seeing this edit to the List of sovereign states by date of formation article, I took a look at the Military occupation article, the lead sentence of which says that military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army. 
It seems to me that the presence of the redirect is a POV problem, and a confusing one at that. I suggest that the redirected be removed. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect here from [[U.S. occupation of Iraq]] -- POV problem? 

message: This article should either be renamed to Military occupation of Iraq (2003-2011) or if a similar article already exists on this information relevant new material should be moved from this article to that one. The infobox is totally unacceptable "Republic of Iraq (US occupation)" is not an official name - we have an article on the brief period where Iraq did not have a sovereign government - that is the article on the Coalition Provisional Authority that existed from 2003 to 2004. It is true that the CPA was effectively a client government of the United States due to the dominance of US officials in the CPA, but the occupation of Iraq was not just a "US occupation", there was a large presence of British military forces and other countries' military forces. After 2004, Iraq was a legally recognized sovereign state with self-government. The departure of the coalition has been a long process, and the literal movement of the last foot of the the last American soldier off of Iraqi soil into an aircraft or boat in 2011 does not make that big of a difference to Iraq's assertion of de facto sovereignty that has been growing over the past few years, as exemplified by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's friendly diplomacy with Iran that was looked down upon by the United States, as well as al-Maliki being one of the leaders who pressured the US to remove its troops from Iraq in the first place.--R-41 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article with the infobox is a POV fork 

message: Ctrl + F "Cost," 0 hits. Stay classy Wikipedia. --75.128.245.7 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: Where are the information about the war crimes?? — Allrounder (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing information 

message: From a semantic perspective, I can see why American occupation of Iraq was not appropriate (there was even a formal debate on whether this redirect should be retained).  However, the article was given a new name which the present content makes no pretence of addressing as the complete treatment that "history of" normally implies.  The problem with the present title became painfully clear in my efforts to extend and broaden the lead. What we have here presently is History of Iraq as mainly covered by international media during the American troop deployment in Iraq following the Iraq invasion of 2003.  It would be much easier to shape the lead based on the existing content for my proposed title than the title the article presently has.  To others asking where are the war crimes, where is the economic coverage etc., this is the root problem. — MaxEnt 14:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my damage and raised some flags, and I'm not expecting that I will return, so whoever comes next, feel free to pick up the torch.  — MaxEnt 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name-change was a small disaster 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Iraq (2003–11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217135259/http://www.mnf-iraq.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=49&Itemid=129 to http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=49&Itemid=129
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Iraq (2003–11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151117055417/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11CND-PENT.html?ex=1083211200&en=a495a8aabe8e9000&ei=5070 to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11CND-PENT.html?ex=1083211200&en=a495a8aabe8e9000&ei=5070
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151023175518/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/politics/21DIPL.html?pagewanted=print&position= to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/politics/21DIPL.html?pagewanted=print&position=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Iraq (2003–11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929144510/http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=158592 to http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=158592
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040606002019/http://www.boston.com:80/dailynews/137/world/Once_considered_fringe_al_SadrP.shtml to http://www.boston.com/dailynews/137/world/Once_considered_fringe_al_SadrP.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on History of Iraq (2003–11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525082008/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429195224/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960615762&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960615762&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116062212/http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0119-08.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0119-08.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C%2C1721366%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920092440/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411416/825598 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411416/825598
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040404112439/http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031209.wpent1209/BNStory/National/ to http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031209.wpent1209/BNStory/National/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040406031743/http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n40d02.htm to http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n40d02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206212404/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/IraqisTakeControlInAlMuthanna.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/IraqisTakeControlInAlMuthanna.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206212425/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesHandoverOfDhiQarProvinceInIraq.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesHandoverOfDhiQarProvinceInIraq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206212436/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesHandoverOfAnnajafProvince.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesHandoverOfAnnajafProvince.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040415104410/http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.fallujah.ap/ to http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.fallujah.ap/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8684094.htm?template=contentModules%2Fprintstory.jsp
*Added  tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2056247.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191126/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207041554/http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0407-15.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0407-15.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210085509/http://wmf.org/iraq.html to http://www.wmf.org/iraq.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on History of Iraq (2003–11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130919134806/http://www.usembassy.it/file2004_06/alia/a4060913.htm to http://www.usembassy.it/file2004_06/alia/a4060913.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027192233/http://democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6534 to http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6534
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008224914/http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/20060215_iraqreport.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/20060215_iraqreport.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211141800/http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=30700%2F to http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=30700%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105062506/http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/may2006/a052606ls1.html to http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/may2006/a052606ls1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620025304/http://www.anestforjesus.org/stories/Saddam_Hussein_Execution_Video.php to http://www.anestforjesus.org/stories/Saddam_Hussein_Execution_Video.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211160801/http://www.anestforjesus.org/stories/2nd_Saddam_Hussein_Video_-_In_the_morg.php to http://www.anestforjesus.org/stories/2nd_Saddam_Hussein_Video_-_In_the_morg.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902220839/http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm to http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831232005/http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm to http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Iraq (2003–2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513020947/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122056503871901333.html.html to https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122056503871901333.html
*Added  tag to https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44553-2004Feb15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Iraq (2003–2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925044525/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/in-baghdad-biden-affirms-us-commitment-to-troop-withdrawal-deadlines.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/in-baghdad-biden-affirms-us-commitment-to-troop-withdrawal-deadlines.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion