Talk:Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq

message: This text was originally located at Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. A complete history for the text may be found there. - Montréalais 05:03 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
------------
This needs to be fleshed out and wikified.  Use full names, not just "Saddam".  -- Zoe
Right now, I'm just cutting and pasting from the full Support and Opposition article. I could use some help polishing each resulting segment. - Montréalais
----------
Is an encyclopedia really the right place for what thematically is a recording of an op-ed article ? Also, shouldn't such articles be added in retrospect if at all ?
Ideally, this piece should be a part of "American history in early 21st century" or "Iraq War : 2003"(should it occur). -- Gyan
:Thank you, Gyan.  I've been fighting this battle for a while now.  -- Zoe
----
I renamed the article from "war on" Iraq to "invasion of" Iraq for two reasons:
#The article is completely about the decision to invade or not -- I saw nothing about reactions to the progress of the war itself or the occupation afterwards, let alone the current Iraqi government's campaign against the insurgents
#The phrase "war on" promotes the POV that the purpose (or effect) of the war was against the legitimate interests of the Iraqi people -- a position which is not a fact but a point of view still hotly disputed. "Invasion of" carries no such connotation. It's strictly neutral, raising no questions of purpose or legitimacy. --Uncle Ed 19:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comments 

message: Is there an article which deals with the US military opinon, or is there an intentions to address the question in this one ? I think that with Anthony Zinni, Karen_Kwiatkowski, the recent stories about Rumsfled and humvees, there is something to talk about... Cheers ! Rama 11:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Opinion ? 

message: The following quote is taken out of context:
On the 16th of June 2005, Foxnews editorialist John Gibson aknowledged that " Bush's support for the war is falling off like leaves in autumn" .
If you read the article, Gibson is stating not that popular support for Bush's war is falling, but that Bush's support for the war is falling.  While it may be true that fewer and fewer Americans support the war, Gibson did not make that point in that editorial.  He was lamenting President Bush's failure to more strenuously defend the rightness of the war.
--Henrybaker 21:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think this ? I agree that it could be understood like this (and I admit that I never though of this interpretation), but before this, you  have "People want to know you've thought long and hard before ordering men and women to war. They want to know you have good reasons and that the reasons stand up to vigorous attack.", and right after, you have "[Bush] should be able to convince people that this was a war worth fighting and it's a war worth winning. The latter is harder than the first. It's hard to hang in long enough to actually win. But it is worth it."; to me, this clearly points to the picture of a resolute but misunderstood president, and less and less wanting population. Rama 21:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What about "People want to know you've thought long and hard before ordering men and women to war" ? Rama 07:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Henrybaker, if you yourself admit the "quote is at best ambiguous," then you can only accuse Rama of being unprofessional if you assume bad faith, which is the opposite of Wikipedia's foremost commandment.  Further, you're pushing a novel interpretation, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  FireWeed 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am really sorry, but I still understand this as the popular opinion toward Bush's war, and "He should be able to articulate ..." as what Bush should do to win back this popular support. I understand that two interpretations of the sentence can be made, but I fail to see what is decisively better with yours. Rama 20:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that in the light of this further article , with things like "you may have noticed the American people seem to have lost their ardor for the war", it is safe to think that my interpretation was correct. I am restoring the part. Rama 16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaves in Autumn 

message: According to a Harris Poll released July 21 found that 50% of U.S. respondents said they believe Iraq had the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003. This was reported in numerous news articles, such as The State (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15215272.htm) and The Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/08/do_you_believe_in_wmd.html). PJ 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Public Perception 

message: It seems like this article should be retitled American public opinion of Iraq war.  Public would replace popular, as I think "public opinion poll" is a far more common usage than "popular opinion poll".  Popular has several other connotations (as in populist, or something that people generally favor) that I don't think are intended here. Iraq war would replace invasion of Iraq, since the polls in this article cover the entire war, both invasion and occupation.  I think there is a fairly consistent split on the Iraq war articles between those two phases of the war, with the title "Iraq war" encompassing both pieces.  Does anyone object to my retitling the article?  Thanks.  --Mackabean 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename article 

message: I deleted this sentence- They did this without thinking about the consequences the war might have on Iraq's Christian communities (Armenian, Assyrian, Chaldean), let alone of course, every other community- due to flagrant bias and it being an unverifiable claim. 81.90.21.125 00:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence 

message: A graph aggregating the various polls showing change over time would be fantastic here! --Ephilei 01:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like a bar graph 

message: The article basically ends almost a decade ago.  I found a bit of newer data here: http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/30/more-now-see-failure-than-success-in-iraq-afghanistan/#more-say-u-s-has-failed-than-succeeded-in-achieving-iraq-goals  Should it be added?  Too busy to do it myself. HCA (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent data? 

message: The Structure of the Article is pretty good as the headings are clear and show what is in each section. The exception to this is the heading "The Change" which is too broad and confusing. Something like The flip in Opinion on the war or something like that I feel would be better. In the lead section the last few sentences which show polling data is that should probably be in the body of the article.
Some of the Polling data seems to be misrepresented in the article. For example in the January 2003 section the UN poll that is referred to as showing that "Approximately two-thirds of respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end" is incorrect. The Poll actually say that nearly 2 thirds (63%) support diplomatic solutions now instead of military ones, not that they want are just wanting to see the U.N. report and then decide. While small, it is still inaccurate and should be fixed. 
Some of the sources seem to be too old or broken links, some even use the wayback machine to access pages and information. These sources need to be updated but it might be difficult to find old news articles that aren't behind pay walls or on databases. There are also several places needing citations but many already have the need citation subscript but not all.
The good news it seems that everyone of the talk page is realistic about the articles problems and are working to make positive changes. I agree that adding a graph showing the change overtime could be very useful and enhance the article heavily as most users don't read a fully article and often only read lead sections and look at photos as they scroll throw. It would be a great, quick and easy way to dispense the information. I trust the article will be better soon and good luck!
Sean Ruddy (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Article 

message: "In March 1992, 55% of Americans said they would support sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddam Hussein from power" the referenced archived source does not seem to contain anything to support this sentence
Aisleway (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallup Source does not support this statement, unless I am missing something 

message: Is it only for the United States as a whole or anything within the United States
Hikeddeck (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this include support for war by demographic and state residency factors?