243:
google to find some sources. It may be that some are not receivable, but I think a bunch of them are. I also think a certain number of these predicted effects do not even need sources (such as the fact some people opposed to the war, because they thought there would be humanitarian consequences). I also think that some have arguments and sources in wikipedia itself (such as the british letter). Anyway, these are some sources I found. I tried to limit myself to english references. I apologies in advance if some of the sources are wrong :-)
184:(on which I spent quite a while :-)). I suggest that we try to provide a minimum of balance on this encyclopedia between the arguments of the pro and the ones of the anti. Removing the arguments against, heard then, while keeping the arguments for the war, heard then, (was any weapon of mass destruction used during the war ? is not a good idea....Second, you answered to Fred, that
242:
Since the whole article is presented as a list of unattributed opinions, and that most people here thinks sources should be provided to support keeping the article as unformative as *source* of information about *why* some people feared the war and opposed to it, I have quickly made a few searches on
134:
Because it *might* inform the one (reading this article) who supported the invasion on the reasons why *others* did not support it. And this is *not* in our current articles on the topic. And *this* is information :-) Don't you think that understanding why some people disagreed with the war *before*
337:
I've delisted this from VfD now as sources have been provided but have added an accuracy dispute notice until these are worked into the article as without each part being sourced there is no way of knowing which are accurate and which were made up by the original author of this article.
228:
I agree. The fact that the article contains this line: "More effects are predicted by opponents of the plan than those favoring it" — as if the number of predictions the "author" could come up with was some sort of valid metric — puts it into the "rant" category in my opinion. Delete -
180:, which I suppose required a unique article...And that is about it. Perhaps 2 small paragraphs is a not very visible article. In any case, a rather ridiculous article, compared to the main argument given by the Bush administration at that time. You will find it at
168:. Which is indeed one argument. Perhaps a bit americano-centred ? Actually, reading the full article leaves a certain feeling of bias reading, and to my opinion, the opinion that a good bunch of the arguments I heard a year ago, are not listed...
192:
is sourced either. Still, they are widely accepted as correct. I think many of the arguments given here are so obvious that they do not need sources either. I agree this may not be the case for all arguments. Why do you not list those you
135:
it occurred is valid and meaningfull information in itself ? Are you suggesting all what is on
Knowledge (XXG) is only what *really* occured ? and never what people think or believe or dream of ? Really Maximus ? :-)
21:
312:
credibility of photo and audio and video evidence vs. forgeries or fakes : we may suggest the example of the statue, or some pictures of supposed citizen, which were seen on images from different cities.
214:
I am unsure. the article lists both arguments for and arguments against. The ones for are at the top. The ones against below. It was meant for balance. And it is a rather long article.
144:
169:
303:
For the role of the internet in mass media and forming public opinion, several articles from
Knowledge (XXG) and desinfopedia should suffice as sources :-) (
54:
Delete unless the claims can be specifically sourced. "I heard a rumour that someone might have said X" is not good enough for an encyclopedia article. See
250:(I think this is should provide basic source for the ecological threats. These were mentionned as predicted effects as arguments against the war)
65:
Delete. Presdumably there will be a history article on this, and therefore musings on "predictions" is political POV. Not for
Knowledge (XXG) -
181:
41:
177:
173:
44:#10). (The page was also written by a user that has subsequently been banned.) Since Iraq has been invaded this page is now pointless.
17:
202:
If the information is useful in determining why people opposed this, then shouldn't this be merged with an article on opposition? --
189:
157:
166:
Some have speculated that western
European countries were against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment.
221:
Delete. This article presents a list of unattributed opinions and predictions. As much as I try to read it, I see it as a rant.
124:
Why do we need someone's old speculations on what 'might happen', when instead all we should report is what has happened?
176:
is about the protests, not the reasons about the protests...plus a special article about the christian church position,
37:
172:
only list the for and the against. That is not very informative about why there were against and why they are for...
55:
283:
147:. This is about the deletion of an article that made predictions (without sources) before the war occurred.
197:
think need source, as you doubt a reasonable number of people used these arguments to oppose the invasion ?
31:
Previously listed on VfD. Delisted as sources have been provided. These need to be worked into the article
151:
128:
110:
48:
327:
304:
295:
315:
97:
277:
342:
148:
125:
107:
45:
222:
206:
89:
321:
247:
80:
253:
230:
73:
66:
59:
289:
136:
119:
118:
Keep. There is usefull information in this article. Let's see what is not sourced.
268:(great resource for political reasons, predictions and fear over what could occur)
259:
339:
318:
about fear of diplomatic implications (Bayrou is an important french politician)
203:
86:
292:
this one is interesting, but there may be objections for using it as a source
40:
Attempting to 'predict' the effects of something is "primary research" (see
284:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.HTM
265:
271:
328:
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/01-25-03/international_2.asp
96:
Delete. Encylopedias should not have articles about the future.
324:
about worries on
Kurdistan as an independent region within Iraq
274:(some economical arguments not listed in the article I think)
296:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911555.html
256:(some references about the fear for diplomatic consequences)
156:
Precisely. The articles we currently have on the topic are:
316:
http://www.udf.org/presse/interviews/fb_lacroix_260203.html
280:(a nice set of arguments against, for fear of some effects)
188:
argument listed was sourced. True. As no argument given in
278:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm
330:
about fear on tourism drop as an argument against the war
262:(might have a couple arguments on some predicted effects)
248:
http://english.pravda.ru/region/2003/03/21/44768.html
103:
Keep. But remove all material which is not sourced.
322:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/515/515p17.htm
145:
Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq
298:about tolerance of wmd in the hand of some nations
254:http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2003/02/11/43273.html
290:http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898
260:http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03306/235829.stm
170:Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq
8:
164:. Practicaly, it starts by explaining that
79:Keep, potentially useful with attributions.
266:http://www.princeton.edu/~lisd/amin.html
272:http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul43.html
162:why many people were opposed to the war
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
182:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
178:Catholic Church against war on Iraq
174:Global protests against war on Iraq
38:Predicted effects of invading Iraq
28:
22:Predicted effects of invading Iraq
286:about the electromagnetic threats
190:Popular opposition to war on Iraq
158:Popular opposition to war on Iraq
72:Delete, see my comment above.
1:
56:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
42:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
359:
345:22:51, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
143:We have several pages on
51:11:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
225:06:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
211:01:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
131:01:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
76:22:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
69:19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
62:16:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
233:04:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
160:. It claims to explain
113:15:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
106:None of it is sourced.
100:17:58, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
305:media manipulation
350:
358:
357:
353:
352:
351:
349:
348:
347:
85:Delete, moot --
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
356:
354:
332:
331:
325:
319:
313:
309:
308:
300:
299:
293:
287:
281:
275:
269:
263:
257:
251:
241:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
200:
199:
198:
141:
140:
139:
116:
115:
114:
101:
94:
83:
77:
70:
63:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
355:
346:
344:
341:
335:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
310:
306:
302:
301:
297:
294:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
249:
246:
245:
244:
232:
227:
226:
224:
220:
213:
212:
210:
209:
205:
201:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
154:
153:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
132:
130:
127:
123:
122:
121:
117:
112:
109:
105:
104:
102:
99:
95:
93:
92:
88:
84:
82:
78:
75:
71:
68:
64:
61:
57:
53:
52:
50:
47:
43:
39:
36:
35:
34:
32:
23:
19:
336:
333:
240:
207:
194:
185:
165:
161:
120:User:Anthere
98:DJ Clayworth
90:
30:
29:
223:Kingturtle
149:Maximus Re
126:Maximus Re
108:Maximus Re
81:—Eloquence
46:Maximus Re
307:perhaps ?
231:Marshman
74:Pfortuny
67:Marshman
60:Onebyone
20: |
340:Angela
195:really
137:PomPom
16:<
334:ant
204:Jia
87:Jia
208:ng
186:no
91:ng
58:.
33:.
343:.
152:x
129:x
111:x
49:x
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.