262:
278:
361:
312:
46:
553:
reasons stand up to vigorous attack.", and right after, you have " 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.
147:
939:
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. --
219:
208:
21:
105:
77:
197:
186:
175:
1080:
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
1076:
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
938:
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)
604:
He should be able to articulate the reasons we're there without sounding like a broken record. He should be able to say why we'll stay a certain length of time — long enough for them to get ready to protect themselves — and then if they seem like they will fail forever, we'll probably have to go, and
1068:
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
695:
The article desperately need to spell out wherefrom it gets it seemingly near divine insight into the
American mind. Especially the intro where it’s forwarded without a scrap of evidence that popular opinion is this and that and what not. That all it is in fact are some random more or less (and more
552:
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
1072:
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
1042:
I think more recent data should be added for the 10 year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. In 2013-2014, President Obama fulfilled his promise of pulling US troops out of the area. Based on this decision, I found a source from the Pew
Research center that polled citizens asking if they felt the
618:
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
538:
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
587:
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
Knowledge (XXG)'s foremost commandment. Further, you're pushing a novel interpretation, and extraordinary claims require
857:
The article may not be “encyclopedic” but it is a valuable resource if someone is interested in a centralized collection of opinion polls concerning the
American public’s support of the Invasion. Granted, in order to serve this function the article requires a massive overhaul. I have a few
365:
681:
The popular opinion regarding this
Invasion is many, varied, changing, yet it exists. If you are dissatisfied with this artcile, you are welcome to suggest it be renamed to a plural and work on its content, but suggesting its deletion does not strike me as a particularly good idea.
806:
Although this article strikes me as fairly accurate in the way it describes "the public mood" as an
American can understand it from watching and reading the American media, it's still unencyclopedic. In what's essentially a timeline of poll results, there are four references. It
563:
Rama, nowhere in the article, before or after the statement in question, does Gibson talk about US popular support for the war. The quote is at best ambiguous, more likely taken out of context. This is not professional behaviour for an encyclopedia or any intellectual excercise.
316:
1043:
war was a success. The poll showed an all time low (52%) that the invasion was not successful and failed to achieve the goals the US set out to accomplish. This attitude could be a direct result from an authoritative government rising up and the early beginnings of ISIS.
986:
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.
648:
There is no "popular opinion" on the Invasion of Iraq, and I doubt there ever will be. Until someone can show other than a few media polls, I can't find the notability of this article, other than it trying to push a political view. Putting up for DR.
269:
87:
285:
91:
868:. This page was born from the “Support and Opposition of the U.S. Plan to Invade” article, and should continue to provide information under that topic. We can find another home for the opinion polls concerning the President, the surge, etc.
31:
463:
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.
1103:"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
921:
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
659:"There is no "popular opinion" on the Invasion of Iraq" ??? I though that the USA were a free country were people were free to have any opinion they wanted ? What are you trying to say with this enormously shocking statement ?
455:
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
1073:
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.
1015:
This source contains no poll from 2003: An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.
871:
Separate the issues from the timeline. i.e. the discussion of President Bush’s speech is useful but clutters the timeline section and might be better placed under a general section entitled “Influencing
1152:
1162:
1157:
1167:
1025:
608:
Do you really think the line that you quoted is about Public Opinion? It is clearly not. Rama, it is unprofessional, at any level of academia, to take a quote out of context like that. --
633:, 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.
1081:
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!
405:
160:
117:
146:
1147:
1026:
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
907:
I updated the intro to contain polls through May of 2007 using the Associated Press-Ipsos and a CNN poll in order to maintain a neutral point of view --
484:
Apparently people don't even think this article is valid. I know I'd like a clear, NPOV account of how Iraqis feel about being "liberated", though.
381:
336:
112:
82:
756:
The article is of a very low quality. Filled with unsubstantiated and uncited polls and many vague (and in the context quite useless) snippets like
422:
Right now, I'm just cutting and pasting from the full Support and Opposition article. I could use some help polishing each resulting segment. -
500:
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
429:
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
1047:
121:
966:
I Agree renaming the article to American public opinion of Iraq war is a good idea because popular seams like the social latter idea --
696:
less than more) trustworthy and biased polls and no general voting has ever been made, except for the presidential election in 2005.
668:
That's the point I'm making. There can be no one "popular opinion", which makes me think from reading it that it is pushing one. --
1133:
1114:
1090:
1058:
1037:
1005:
991:
975:
961:
952:
943:
911:
899:
880:
840:
793:
780:
741:
700:
686:
672:
663:
653:
637:
623:
612:
592:
578:
568:
557:
546:
393:
348:
776:
This article is really unworthy of Knowledge (XXG). I am surprised that the originator hasn't done more to "wikify" the entries.
478:
57:
364:
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
315:
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
436:
Ideally, this piece should be a part of "American history in early 21st century" or "Iraq War : 2003"(should it occur). --
27:
824:
I realize weasel words are perfectly acceptable on Fox News ( "some people think ..." ), but not in an encyclopedia.
529:
772:, etc. The uncited polls should be removed and the vague, the "hearsay" tone of "some" and "most" cleaned up.
63:
45:
927:
116:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
1048:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/more-americans-say-us-failed-to-achieve-its-goals-in-iraq/
669:
650:
369:
261:
790:
777:
738:
988:
1069:
the last few sentences which show polling data is that should probably be in the body of the article.
1086:
574:
What about "People want to know you've thought long and hard before ordering men and women to war"Â ?
324:
1125:
20:
1129:
1110:
971:
724:
389:
344:
923:
505:
485:
423:
409:
373:
602:
But Bush's support for the war is falling off like leaves in autumn. And that shouldn't be.
1082:
1054:
1001:
A graph aggregating the various polls showing change over time would be fantastic here! --
609:
565:
543:
958:
949:
940:
908:
896:
877:
489:
1141:
1106:
1033:
967:
837:
631:
589:
533:
501:
385:
340:
532:
aknowledged that " Bush's support for the war is falling off like leaves in autumn"
1024:
The article basically ends almost a decade ago. I found a bit of newer data here:
1002:
697:
465:
416:
This needs to be fleshed out and wikified. Use full names, not just "Saddam". --
328:
277:
1124:
Is it only for the United States as a whole or anything within the United States
459:
The phrase "war on" promotes the POV that the purpose (or effect) of the war was
451:
I renamed the article from "war on" Iraq to "invasion of" Iraq for two reasons:
360:
311:
481:? The rest of the world's opinion seems adequately covered in other articles.
1050:
320:
1120:
Can this include support for war by demographic and state residency factors?
1099:
Gallup Source does not support this statement, unless I am missing something
948:
I do not have a problem with replacing the term public for popular though.
683:
660:
634:
620:
575:
554:
513:
437:
1029:
928:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/08/do_you_believe_in_wmd.html
444:
417:
811:
half the results in this article don't mention which poll they're from!
525:
524:
The following quote is taken out of context: On the 16th of June 2005,
443:
Thank you, Gyan. I've been fighting this battle for a while now. --
509:
858:
proposals that I will begin working on unless there is contention:
104:
76:
864:
Remove all polls not directly portraying the opinion towards the
1077:
but many already have the need citation subscript but not all.
39:
15:
924:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15215272.htm
539:
failure to more strenuously defend the rightness of the war.
276:
260:
145:
408:. A complete history for the text may be found there. -
406:
Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq
355:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
306:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
1153:
Start-Class North American military history articles
477:
Sort of covered in other articles, but why not have
158:
This article has been checked against the following
1163:
Start-Class United States military history articles
1158:
North American military history task force articles
243:
157:
1168:United States military history task force articles
630:I think that in the light of this further article
1028:Should it be added? Too busy to do it myself.
512:, there is something to talk about... Cheers !
713:This why I think this article is desering of a
8:
789:I agree. These weasel words make me cringe.
130:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
43:
270:North American military history task force
240:
154:
71:
479:Iraqi popular opinion of invasion of Iraq
382:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
337:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
286:United States military history task force
508:, the recent stories about Rumsfled and
110:This article is within the scope of the
380:Above undated message substituted from
335:Above undated message substituted from
73:
605:say, "Hey, we gave it a good shot." "
120:. To use this banner, please see the
1148:Start-Class military history articles
957:(which we could link to, of course).
133:Template:WikiProject Military history
30:on September 21, 2005. The result of
7:
895:That sounds good to me. Thanks. --
404:This text was originally located at
486:Iraqi resistance#Analysis and polls
62:It is of interest to the following
14:
930:). PJ 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
359:
310:
217:
206:
195:
184:
173:
103:
75:
44:
19:
26:This article was nominated for
1006:01:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
687:05:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
673:02:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
664:06:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
654:01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
1134:03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
1115:04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
976:13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
794:00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
742:00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1091:17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
1059:18:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
841:19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
593:19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
394:07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
349:02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
113:Military history WikiProject
1038:18:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
926:) and The Washington Post (
781:20:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
638:16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
624:20:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
613:16:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
579:07:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
569:00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
558:21:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
547:21:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
1184:
934:Proposal to rename article
178:Referencing and citation:
861:Remove all uncited claims
516:11:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
492:21:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
412:05:03 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
284:
268:
239:
136:military history articles
98:
70:
992:00:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
962:04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
953:21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
944:00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
912:23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
900:19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
881:06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
701:17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
468:19:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
997:Sounds like a bar graph
917:False Public Perception
244:Associated task forces:
189:Coverage and accuracy:
770:"a consistent pattern"
588:extraordinary proof.
281:
265:
222:Supporting materials:
150:
52:This article is rated
368:. Student editor(s):
319:. Student editor(s):
280:
264:
149:
56:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
762:"other polls showed"
1064:Peer Review Article
766:"most polls showed"
211:Grammar and style:
164:for B-class status:
644:"Popular Opinion"?
496:Military Opinion ?
366:on the course page
323:. Peer reviewers:
317:on the course page
282:
266:
151:
118:list of open tasks
58:content assessment
1020:More recent data?
506:Karen_Kwiatkowski
488:has some info. -
400:Untitled comments
303:
302:
299:
298:
295:
294:
291:
290:
235:
234:
202:criterion not met
191:criterion not met
180:criterion not met
122:full instructions
38:
37:
1175:
982:Deleted sentence
729:
723:
520:Leaves in Autumn
396:
363:
351:
314:
251:
241:
225:
221:
220:
214:
210:
209:
203:
199:
198:
192:
188:
187:
181:
177:
176:
155:
138:
137:
134:
131:
128:
127:Military history
107:
100:
99:
94:
83:Military history
79:
72:
55:
49:
48:
40:
23:
16:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1138:
1137:
1122:
1101:
1066:
1022:
1013:
999:
984:
964:
955:
936:
919:
754:
727:
721:
670:Mrmiscellanious
651:Mrmiscellanious
646:
522:
498:
475:
402:
379:
370:Gillian Bennett
357:
334:
325:Carsonfirestone
308:
249:
223:
218:
212:
207:
201:
196:
190:
185:
179:
174:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
85:
53:
12:
11:
5:
1181:
1179:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1140:
1139:
1121:
1118:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1065:
1062:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1009:
998:
995:
983:
980:
979:
956:
947:
935:
932:
918:
915:
905:
904:
903:
902:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
875:
874:
873:
869:
862:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
799:
798:
797:
796:
784:
783:
753:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
706:
705:
704:
703:
690:
689:
678:
677:
676:
675:
645:
642:
641:
640:
627:
626:
598:
597:
596:
595:
582:
581:
561:
560:
521:
518:
497:
494:
474:
473:Iraqi opinion?
471:
470:
469:
457:
449:
448:
447:
427:
414:
401:
398:
356:
353:
307:
304:
301:
300:
297:
296:
293:
292:
289:
288:
283:
273:
272:
267:
257:
256:
254:
252:
246:
245:
237:
236:
233:
232:
230:
228:
227:
226:
215:
204:
193:
182:
168:
167:
165:
152:
142:
141:
139:
108:
96:
95:
80:
68:
67:
61:
50:
36:
35:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1180:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1143:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1119:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1019:
1017:
1010:
1008:
1007:
1004:
996:
994:
993:
990:
981:
978:
977:
973:
969:
963:
960:
954:
951:
946:
945:
942:
933:
931:
929:
925:
916:
914:
913:
910:
901:
898:
894:
893:
892:
891:
882:
879:
876:
870:
867:
863:
860:
859:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
842:
839:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
810:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
795:
792:
791:70.106.36.134
788:
787:
786:
785:
782:
779:
778:207.200.116.8
775:
774:
773:
771:
767:
763:
759:
751:
743:
740:
739:70.106.36.134
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
726:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
702:
699:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
685:
680:
679:
674:
671:
667:
666:
665:
662:
658:
657:
656:
655:
652:
643:
639:
636:
632:
629:
628:
625:
622:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
606:
603:
594:
591:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
559:
556:
551:
550:
549:
548:
545:
540:
536:
534:
531:
528:editorialist
527:
519:
517:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:Anthony Zinni
495:
493:
491:
487:
482:
480:
472:
467:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
434:
432:
426:
425:
420:
419:
413:
411:
407:
399:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
377:
375:
371:
367:
362:
354:
352:
350:
346:
342:
338:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
305:
287:
279:
275:
274:
271:
263:
259:
258:
255:
253:
248:
247:
242:
238:
231:
229:
224:criterion met
216:
213:criterion met
205:
194:
183:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
163:
162:
156:
153:
148:
144:
143:
140:
123:
119:
115:
114:
109:
106:
102:
101:
97:
93:
92:United States
89:
88:North America
84:
81:
78:
74:
69:
65:
59:
51:
47:
42:
41:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1123:
1105:
1102:
1094:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1045:
1041:
1023:
1014:
1000:
989:81.90.21.125
985:
965:
937:
920:
906:
865:
808:
769:
765:
761:
758:"some polls"
757:
755:
720:
647:
619:with yours.
607:
601:
599:
562:
541:
537:
523:
499:
483:
476:
460:
450:
435:
433:if at all ?
430:
428:
421:
415:
403:
378:
358:
333:
309:
159:
111:
64:WikiProjects
530:John Gibson
424:Montréalais
410:Montréalais
374:Alexlavin99
200:Structure:
54:Start-class
1142:Categories
1083:Sean Ruddy
809:seems like
610:Henrybaker
566:Henrybaker
544:Henrybaker
456:insurgents
431:retrospect
1126:Hikeddeck
959:Nishspeak
950:Orcasgirl
941:Mackabean
909:Orcasgirl
897:Orcasgirl
878:Nishspeak
725:POV-check
490:Omegatron
34:was keep.
1107:Aisleway
1046:Source:
1011:Bad link
968:Jeffrd10
872:Factors”
866:invasion
838:FireWeed
590:FireWeed
466:Uncle Ed
386:PrimeBOT
341:PrimeBOT
161:criteria
28:deletion
1003:Ephilei
752:Quality
698:Rune X2
526:Foxnews
510:humvees
461:against
329:Haiyu17
60:scale.
1051:Kfill
737:tag.
321:Kfill
1130:talk
1111:talk
1087:talk
1055:talk
1034:talk
972:talk
684:Rama
661:Rama
635:Rama
621:Rama
576:Rama
555:Rama
514:Rama
438:Gyan
390:talk
345:talk
1030:HCA
445:Zoe
418:Zoe
384:by
339:by
1144::
1132:)
1113:)
1089:)
1057:)
1036:)
974:)
768:,
764:,
760:,
728:}}
722:{{
649:--
564:--
542:--
535:.
504:,
464:--
392:)
376:.
372:,
347:)
331:.
327:,
250:/
90:/
86::
1128:(
1109:(
1085:(
1053:(
1032:(
970:(
922:(
600:"
388:(
343:(
124:.
66::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
