Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

2003 invasion of Iraq is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 20, 2008.

Australia: Military history Mid‑importance

	Australia portal 2003 invasion of Iraq is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Iraq Top‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / Middle East / North America / Polish / United States / Post-Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 2007-12-12, 2003 invasion of Iraq was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

On 30 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to United States invasion of Iraq. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Bush's condemnation of the invasion

Hi, I feel like Bush's condemnation of Iraq is very relevant to the 2003 invasion of Iraq article.

It's not a freudian slip. he says 'Iraq too' afterwards. this needs to be in there somewhere. It's highly relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEr7TayrmU CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, do any RS think this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who is rs CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wp:rs, read it please, ohh and wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video of the Telegraph is not reliable? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Bush said this and clearly it is relevant, so please help me add it instead of just breaking down. I'm new to wikipedia. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is you saying it was not a slip up, and that he thinks this, the source does not say that. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched the clip? he says 'Iraq too'. That is the admission. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I have raised my objections time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something to be made of this, then it will be made in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some illegal wars are less illegal than others

There is a whole separate Wikipedia article (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War) trying to relativise the illegality of the 2003 invasion (the article is even titled "Legality of the Iraq War" as opposed to "Illegality of the Iraq War"). An interesting contrast with more recent developments: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War#Legality_and_declaration_of_war

Just saying that perhaps there is a little bit too much bias here (or there)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.79.80 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to AngloNews, how exactly did “2003” invade Iraq?

Please, NSA, I'm not implying that it was the USA that invaded Iraq. Don't persecute and censor me. I just want to know how exactly this “2003” invaded Iraq. Is that a country, a year, a continent or an ethnicity (like the "western ethinicity")? Edefoam (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it is saying in 2003 Iraq was invaded. And no the USA did not invade Iraq, and an international coalition did. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International coalition led by USA. Nightwolf87 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did the illegal invasion begin?

This might be a stupid question. Both the top section and infobox of this article indicate that the illegal invasion began on March 20th 2003, while the rest of the article frequently refers to the initial invasion phase starting on March 19th 2003. Why are there two different starting dates mentioned here? I feel like this could be confusing to readers. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a matter of which time zone is being applied. It should be Iraq time. The date is referred to at several places, so I'm not quite certain how to resolve this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic photo description

Despite what @Swatjester may say about the nature of this cheering as purposeful during the Firdos Square statue destruction, Iraqi civilians were in fact cheering the toppling of the statue and Iraqi civilians cheer as American soldiers topple Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad's Firdos Square, the article has a section going over this,

Before the statue was toppled, Marine Corporal Edward Chin of 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division (attached to 3rd Battalion 4th Marines) climbed the ladder and placed a U.S. flag over the statue's face. According to the book "Shooter", by Coughlin, Kuhlman, and Davis, other Marines of the 3/4 realized the PR disaster unfolding as the formerly cheering crowd became silent, with one woman shouting at the Marines to remove the flag.

where it's clearly described that snapping a photo at this time would only appear the Iraqis are purposefully, and thus not WP:POV, not incidentally cheering the toppling of the statue then. Maybe what was not known was it's hard to find a public domain photo with closeups of the crowd cheering the statue toppling, this would be a concise description which fulfills WP:TOOMUCH, but I had no problem with that description if such a photo was found, notwithstanding that the Iraq war page photo is what we're left with. However the correct way to deal with that is not for @Swatjester and @Adr28382 to disregard 45.73.35.210 (me)'s complaint

maintaining constructiveness (nothing was taken from civilian cheers)

and it reiterated as

Photo is much less meaningful in context WP:POV. Accurately describing this context in the page's infobox would be WP:TOOMUCH.

as not constructive. Hopefully the two admins and @User:Adr28382 will finally see the rationality and evidence now. Lumbering in thought (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was engaged in an edit war against four other editors without attempting to gain consensus while WP:LOUTSOCKing. Do not do that again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I intend to keep my account and a prong here is good faith, that apparently has been questioned, I would point out that it was during a weekday, during business hours, on the IP account Talk page that many would tend to check I planned to come back on the main computer and I do not have a universal password that would enable me to log in to Wikipedia without having to manually look up the password or painlessly, and one of the reverts was to one with the edit summary What?. Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can AGF about using the IP but it is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRD - particularly when the objections are couched in P&G. This discussion should have been initiated earlier. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to try to write the article in the infobox. Using a photo essay in the infobox falls foul of this and advice at WP:COLLAGE as to when a collage is acceptable: where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. This is not such a case. Multiple image captions just bloat the infobox and WP:TOOMUCH detail for any particular image just exacerbates the problem. WP:LEADIMAGE is telling use to pick an iconic [single] image for the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]