Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move 30 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

---

2003 invasion of Iraq → United States invasion of Iraq – Per WP:PRECISE. Just like with the United States invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion was US-led and was also launched to achieve U.S. goals (overthrowing Saddam Hussein). WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Broadly support. I think the reasoning here makes sense. Either "United States invasion of Iraq," "U.S. invasion of Iraq" or (as it is on French Wikipedia) "2003 United States invasion of Iraq." Any of these, I think, are better than just saying "2003 invasion" without mentioning the main country doing the invading.

XTheBedrockX (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nom does not give a reason why the proposal is an improvement. Srnec (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  People didn’t accept the United States invasion of Afghanistan page to be named 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, wuth valid reasons. Why should we keep 2003 invasion of Iraq the way it is right now? Check the talk page of us invasion of afghanistan, the last section and see why. I first wanted to change to 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, but I’ve changed my mind. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

See my comments below, but i think your arguments at the talk page about the Afghan invasion case were the better ones, so I encourage you to change your mind back! hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• comment - complex but inclined to oppose. The article needs a title that is most appropriate for a global audience. The invasion was a major political issue, at the time and historically, in other countries that were invasion participants, particularly the UK and Australia. To add "US" to the title would be an inaccurate reflection of their involvement. It also appears the change is unnecessary in terms of the concision element of the policy. FWIW, i think the title of the Afhganistan invasion article is unwise. Some countries - Afghanistan is a good example, see Invasions of Afghanistan - experience multiple invasions and wars and a good approach to titles of articles would be one that is likely to provide a unique identifier. The obvious one is to use a year, not a country. I think United States invasion of Afghanistan is the title that needs to change. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess that on some RMs, only people who oppose your choice are commenting on those. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. If it had to be changed, it would be United States–led invasion of Iraq, as the proposed title would suggest only the USA was involved. But obviously we shouldn't change per WP:DONTFIXIT. It could also be confused with American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021), and War in Iraq (2013–2017). 90.254.30.143 (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also like to propose a WP:SNOWCLOSE. 90.254.30.143 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the outcome is quite clear (at best no consences). If neither XTheBedrockX nor WikipedianRevolutionary object, I could close this or we could just leave it as it is due to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The proposed title change, in my opinion, better portrays the nature and principal involvement of the United States in the events surrounding the 2003 Iraq invasion. Mikeyspeed7 (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Arguably any argument for this change is equally an argument to change the others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that the Nom misconstrues WP:PRECISION. The invasion was by a coalition, albeit US led, so the proposal is not more precise. It is sufficiently precise give that (per WP:AT) concision is generally the primary consideration. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.