Talk:Human rights in post-invasion Iraq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Creator[edit]

Please see Talk:Human rights abuses in Saddam's Iraq for why I started this new page. russell_j

stuff put at top[edit]

I would like to point out that there has been a western report in Fallujah, which has been "overlooked" by mainstream media.

http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/

I have to admit that some of his writings are rather emotional but it does not change the fact that he is another source of information which one should not oversee.

Btw : Concerning the snipers and Human rights. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Being shot dead by a sniper counts as a serious breach of this right. I would like this opportunity to question the motives of the ones leaving comments made by a sniper in a Mainstream Newapaper out of the article - IMO the reason is not a wish to be as NPOV as possible but to whitewash the US Military, which I can and will not support.

Turrican (Sorry, can't log in right now)

Human Rights and Self-defense issues

I am unable to find mention of the disarmament clause in the Iraqi constitution being a violation of the basic right to self-defense. The concept that the UN Charter on Human Rights describes proper human rights while the fundamental issue of self-defense is explicitly removed from the discussion is at very least POV, and I don't see how it can be resolved one way or another. What is the proper bag of issues that is considered NPOV human rights? In order to resolve which issues are correctly deemed human rights, and which are considered up for debate, what is the authority? eRipley 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following text:

In a newspaper interview [1], a US sniper describes Fallujah as a "target-rich" "sniper's dream", and states "as a sniper your goal is to completely demoralize the enemy".

This doesn't seem to relate to the topic of reported human rights violations.

Also:

Many newspaper reports indicate that a significant proportion of the fatalities in Fallujah were women and children.

I left this, but it is not cited. I think it should be removed soon if no one can add any links to credible newspaper articles.

Many of the cited reports about violations in Fallujah seem sketchy, too. Some of the linked articles consist of someone writing about what a friend or friends of theirs told them about this and that. Should this really be used as an accepted source by Wikipedia's standards? I could create dozens of articles about numerous topics and cite blogs and the like as the source, but that doesn't make the articles credible or factual. --24.0.226.177 08:53, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


I understand your reservations. The situation in Falluja is such that it is very difficult to get good, detailed information of what happened. The main problem is that apart from an al-Jazeera team there were no journalists, for obvious reasons. In absence of information from journalists, eyewitness reports are very important. Is there any reason to disbelieve their reports? I have actually met one of them (Jo Widling) and know that she is absolutely trustworthy. Since the various eyewitness reports corroborate each other, they make a pretty strong case. That raises the uncomfortable question why US soldiers would be committing such atrocities. Precisely this is why I added the comment of that marine sniper - it suggests the atrocities are happening because they are a trigger-happy bunch and their aim is to demoralise "the enemy". I suggest we add the sniper's comment back, as it points towards why these human rights abuses are happening. pir 11:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the quote helps to get an idea of why the atrocities might happen. But for that purpose there is no need to include the term "sniper's dream". describes Fallujah as target rich would be sufficient. Get-back-world-respect 21:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair enough. I put the sniper's comments back, but left out the "snipers' dream" comment. Do people feel it's acceptable in the present form? If anyone has more information on the goals of sniper tactics, this could be very useful. pir 09:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the article doesn't connect the snipers to the atrocities enough to warrant mentioning that snipers find the area "target-rich." It would be one thing if the sniper said that women and children were targets. I'm more inclined to believe that the women and children are killed by use of too much firepower by infantry and/or air power. I'm not going to make an edit here, but maybe someone could consider rewording it so that the mention of snipers supports the atrocity dialogue more. Bugmuncher 23:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why not include this in US-led occupation of Iraq? Get-back-world-respect 15:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

a) Try editing US-led occupation of Iraq. You get: "WARNING: This page is 31 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32 kB. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." So I think that's a pretty good reason not to make that page even larger by adding in the content from this page! b) If we have a specific page for 'Human rights abuses in Saddam's Iraq' then for NPOV (given that it's a contentious topic) I think this topic needs its own page. And there's a lot to say about this topic.
That's because you should be editing sections within the page, not the entire page. I also think it would make more sense to include this info in US-led occupation of Iraq. Or rename this page to Human Rights Situation in Occupied-Iraq since that is what it is about. In any case, US-led occupation of Iraq is completely lacking; it needs more than a single sentence about this stuff in order to be a comprehensive article about the occupation. Mdchachi|Talk 15:21, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(a) It's a big topic. I think it deserves its own page. And US-led occupation of Iraq can link to it. (b) Using the word 'occupied' is not exactly NPOV. I personally agree with you that it's an occupation. But others don't - they think it's an 'administration', or a 'liberation'. But everyone can agree that Iraq is in its 'post-Saddam' phase.--Russell j 10:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The size issue is an artifact of obsolete browsers concerns and shouldn't be taken seriously. See WP:SIZE for more information. Blue Leopard 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now renamed both pages to use 'situation' rather than 'abuses'. Please see Talk on Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq for why I think this is a good idea. Russell_j

I removed the link to the al-Basra website, as some of the pictures it contains have apparently been taken from porn sites depicting forced sex with IRaqi women in a war situation - see [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38335]. (still, given the trade of pictures of abuse among soldiers, it doesn't seem totally impossible that they are genuine ; and the al-Basra website may not have acted in bad faith.) pir 11:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to ban anonymous poster from editing this article[edit]

Since this article has been repeatedly vandalized by anonymous users I suggest to ban them from editing. As far as I know this option does not yet exit, but I made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection. Please contribute to the debate about my idea. Get-back-world-respect 21:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Abu Ghraib sections merging[edit]

It seems there are two sections within the article about Abu Ghraib that could be merged. The two sections being under the different headings of "July to December 2003" and "Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal," respectively. Any suggestions on how to merge them? I was thinking of putting all Abu Ghraib information under the ""Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal" heading since it's a subtitle of "May 2004" and that's when most of the media took notice. What do you think? --Werbwerb 07:09, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think the merged material should be put under "July to December 2003", with the reports as sub headings. - Jeandré, 2004-06-19t14:40z
Suggest this article is retained as "main article" with other articles as sub-articles AndrewRT 11:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate external links?[edit]

Since this article has several external links thruout, and the external links section makes it hard to see what is refered to, I suggest we incorporate the latter into the article. - Jeandré, 2004-06-19t14:40z

Generic article? New articles?[edit]

There seem to be three sets of abuse reports coming out - Iraq (mainly centered on Abu Ghraib, although not completely); Guantanamo (especially since several brits were released as innocent - their reports are just as bad as the Abu Ghraib reports, and there have been calls in congress to release the video tapes that were made of them); and Afghanistan (this week alone they just had the second major investigation launched into abuse - the first being kicking, beating, sleep dep, and sexual abuse in custody, and the second being specifically sexual abuse. The Red Cross has reported systemic abuse in all three locations. The question arises:

Should we create new articles for the abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo? Should there be a single article about the recent round of abuse? I would expect that these cases are going to start to converge into a single general "prisoner abuse" scandal instead of separate ones. If we should not have separate articles, where should the Guanatamo and Afghanistan abuses be covered, and how should one navigate between the abuse cases? Just a general structure issue here. Rei 17:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this? In January 2003 US reservists beat silly one of their own in how-to-"handle"-"uncooperative"-prisoner training exercise at Gitmo -- more evidence severe treatment is policy, not "bad apples" 142.177.22.15 19:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rei and 142, I'd like to suggest:
I agree there is a single narrative emerging here, but I think it deserves its own page, rather than trying to mix it in with the descriptions of specific instances of abuse.
If the Afghan and Guantanamo sections grow big enough they could always be hived off into their own articles (eg. human rights situation in post-Taliban Afghanistan). What do you think? --Russell j 03:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My POV reverts[edit]

(so much for copy/paste into edit summary...)

We have to remember that most of the Iraqi's who were in these prisoners were insurgents, terrorists, murderers, rapists and former Baath party mebers loyal to Saddam Hussein. Many of these criminals were in prison for a reason, now that they are realeased they are now the ones who are taking westerners hostage and beheading them.

I've reverted this because it's quite biased. In addition, It makes an allegation that I haven't seen any substantiation for, namely that it's released prisoners that are the primary kidnappers. Finally, it's quite out of place in the article header. It might belong under one or both of the headings Investigations and Alleged human rights abuses by Iraqi guerrillas. - Kenwarren 18:41, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Quadell m (Reverted edits by CrucifiedChrist to last version by DMG413) - Maybe there is a misunderstanding - why did you remove my edit? -CrucifiedChrist

Yes, hello. I hope I didn't seem rude there. The text in question refers to the Gonzales memo, of course, in which Gonzales said that the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." This is why the word "quaint" was in the article. Why did you want the word removed? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for writing back regarding "quaint". Please allow me to quote that sentence out of the Gonzales memo in full:
In my judgement, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commisary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.
I think that when the sentence read in the entirety, it is seen that the word "quaint" applied to the items at the end of the sentence, not to the limitaitons on questioning prisoners. That's why I removed "quaint" from the article - we were using it as if it applied to the questioning of prisoners. -CrucifiedChrist
I hadn't seen the whole quote before. Interesting. I don't like Gonzales one bit, you understand, but when I see the entire context the use of the word "quaint" doesn't seem egregious. Many, many news sources only showed the first half of that quote, which does a disservice to readers. Anyway, I see why you removed it now. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 02:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for being open minded. I, too, have seen the "quaint" sentence often only partially quoted. Perhaps some initial biased source snipped the part they thought was interesting, and then other news sources accepted it without returning to the original document. I don't know, but I do think that Wikipedia can be better than that. --CrucifiedChrist
P.S. - Of course, if an original version surfaces that includes the use of "quaint" in a more general way, then I take back all my objections.


Sanctions[edit]

Article 25. of the UN Universal declaration of human rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

According to studies by various human rights organizations, deaths of approximately 5000-6000 children every month, hundreds of thousands in total, is being caused by contaminated water, lack of medical supplies and malnutrition.

Isn't this topic worthwhile to be included in this article?

British torture is fact, US torture is only alleged?[edit]

The lead sentence in the 2nd half seems to say that US torture is only alleged, but British torture is fact. That seems improbable to me, given that photos and video of US torture have been circulated worldwide, and stories passed all around the Levant.

Second on the above observation. "Alleged war crimes by coalition forces"/ "Human rights abuses by insurgents"

Gold mine of data[edit]

I just added (to external links):

U.S. State Department on Iraq Human rights in 2004 (released 2005) (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41722.htm) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices section on Iraq. 460 KB in size for the Iraq portion alone. HTML. One page. No pictures, all English text. 4.250.132.124 20:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

  • This article is pretty atrocious. Crimes committed by the US are always "alleged" or were "apparently" committed even when extremely well documented (though my favorite is the use of "theoretically" in the last section). The bias starts out in the intro where the situation is discussed from the perspective of the primary offender. --Tothebarricades.tk 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • {{sofixit}} :p Rama 12:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I propose moving the section titled "Human rights abuses by Iraqi guerrillas, criminal elements, and other insurgents" to some other article. Most of the things listed here seem to be criminal acts done by gangs and "insurgents". These sort of stuff don't usually count as human rights violations. Human rights violations are usually done by governments or other governing bodies (read the second paragraph in Human rights for the definition). AucamanTalk 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humans rights abuses were committed in Iraq, some of them by American forces, whether or not we say so. So we might as well say so, in as a netural a way as possible. I know it's hard to do, because of the nature of the acts committed.
JesseG 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

  • Article is too long
  • The first section needs to be moved somewhere else (as per here). AucamanTalk 21:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in post-Saddam Iraq[edit]

I suggest that this article shall be renamed to: "Human rights in post-Saddam Iraq". -- Toytoy 16:28, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Can't we make it into "Human rights in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq" ? It is correct and will sound less awkard... Rama 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "post-Saddam Iraq". "Post-Hussein" is pretty silly, since "Hussein" is not really his surname, and to actually use his surname would make no sense to anyonw. -csloat 19:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We do not say "Adolf's invasion of Poland", "George Administration", "Albert's Relativity" or "Thomas invented the light bulb". Nor do we say "post-Hussein Iraq". "Post-Saddam Hussein Iraq" is an even better choice. -- Toytoy 04:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I am gonig to do a little research this week so I can add the human rights abuses by the Iraqi Insurgency and al-Qeada in Iraq. It seems this article only mentions Coalition Forces and not insurgents. Any reccomendations on where I should add them to the article? --Zer0faults 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to call article about recent murder charges?[edit]

I suspect the recent charging of three US soldiers with murder will become a major story, but have no idea what to name the spin-off article ("Somewhere killings/murders" would seems to be the standard form). Anyone? — JEREMY 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be "Violence in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq"[edit]

The title of article should be changed as the contents is just a list of violent events, not an article about philosophical or legal concepts and their application. Pavel Vozenilek 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one could say that human rights can only be violated by governments. So calling violence by "insurgents" "human rights abuse" is an extension of the concept of "human rights".

Restricting Human Rights violations to only Governments is very irresponsible. You are trying to trivialize the insurgents in Iraq. Besides, the insurgents have declared themselves to be Islamic Governments claiming their authority comes from Allah and the Koran and they wish to impose their view of Sharia on the world. Whether or not you or CNN recognizes them as a 'Government' does not mean they have not committed gross human rights violations.

I just moved this page to Human rights in occupied Iraq and fixed a number of redirects. It's concise, direct, and matches the opening sentence. It's certainly possible for a non-governmental entity or an individual to violate a person's human rights; people have even been prosecuted for it in the USA. --Steven J. Anderson 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction's objectivity.[edit]

The line that reads "Criminal prosecution for the coalition forces are extremely unlikely, due to the fact that the violators themselves are running the tribunals." is inappropriate in the context of an impartial dissemination of information. In such a highly-debated topic, anything that can be construed as holding a negative or positive attitude towards any party or subject should be kept out of an encyclopedia.

Also in the introduction is the sentence "War crime tribunals and criminal prosecution of the numerous crimes by "insurgents" are likely years away." This doesn't strike me as quite so blatantly partisan or inflammatory, but what basis of time or scale of "likelihood" is the author using beyond his or her own personal opinion? Again, I feel that the impartiality of that sentence should be thoroughly questioned.

12.206.79.206 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was merge.--Jorfer 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggested[edit]

There are two merge tags on the Prison and interrogation abuses by coalition forces section that have been there since September without discussions so speak now on the merge or forever hold your peace. I vote merge and follow WP:Summary--Jorfer 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

June 2006[edit]

I moved the executions that were mentioned in June 2006, to May 2006 (when the actual executions took place) as well as providing links to the articles about perpetrators. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article[edit]

The title should be "alleged human rights violations in post-invasion iraq", as this article has nothing to do with other human rights such as freedom of speech or religion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I agree, didn't realise this article is only about violations of human rights. Anyone else agree? Maybe we can form a consensus here?
I think we may be safe to move it ourselves, as long as I'm not the only one :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, can always be changed back (although u might want to add a "as per talk page") Ryan4314 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the video[edit]

Sorry to post this here, as I know it doesn't really belong. But I can't find anywhere else to register my disgust at the video posted on the article, which was (I think, rightly) regarded as a featured image. If that isn't extra-judicial murder, I don't know what is; counter-insurgency carried out at the level of a video game. Lexo (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems you obviously don't know what extra-judicial murder is. 85.220.65.140 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, not killing people like a 'video game'. That makes it wrong I guess. Better to have them lop their heads off like the enemy does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.250.31 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is in the video doesn't give the viewer enough information to make a judgement as to if the killing is justified, unless your position is that the american cause in Iraq was wrong. Then all killing of adversaries would be unjustified. During war armies commonly employ snipers. Killing the wounded person is disturbing to watch. But if that is against the laws of war, then machine guns should be banned. The first few shot will usually wound the victum then the other bullits will finish off the helpless wounded person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.48.218 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fallujah[edit]

In the April 2004 section of Coalition war crimes, it states: "In a newspaper interview, a US sniper described Fallujah as "target-rich", and stated "as a sniper your goal is to completely demoralize the enemy".

This is not at all relevant to war crimes. Nowhere in the interview does the sniper claim to target civilians or engage in terrorism. Fallujah is referred to as "target rich" because there was a large presence of insurgents. It is not a war crime to demoralize your enemy by employing snipers. The link between the statements made in this interview and alleged Coalition war crimes in Fallujah is 100% speculative.

Fallujah part 2[edit]

Let's go through the list of citations used to verify alleged war crimes in Fallujah, in order.

[15] - dead link [16] - POV of an antiwar activist [17] - dead link [18] - dead link [19] - indymedia, which allows anyone to upload anything and label it as news, and was removed from Google at one point for allowing anti-Jewish hate speech. This particular article rants about "market-profit-power chasing interests of the US and UK government and corporate interests" and "recycling and re-empowerment of a neo-Baathist ruling elite, its re-training and re-hiring of over 10,000 Baathist torturers". [20] A report from a virtually unknown online news source, from a virtually unknown reporter (who could be fictional for all we know), filled with typos, which goes on to describe the "bravery" of the insurgents as "moving" [21] A website dedicated to "Home Gardening"

Good job Wikipedia

Removed parts of the article that were not sourced[edit]

I removed the sections on Fallujah which cited reports from fringe websites, nonexistent websites, dead links, etc. One part used a private blog as a source... if anyone wants to reinsert these sections, they should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources

September 2007 Blackwater[edit]

"On September 16, Blackwater guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad."

How is it that Blackwater guards defending themselves a human rights violation? When they got to the square, an "estimated 8-10 persons fired from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi Police uniforms" [2]. HotshotCleaner (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was alleged, investigated, and widely reported as a possible war crime, and the FBI found that almost all of the shootings "were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq.". But I think I'd agree that the section could do with a sentence or two noting the ambiguities here (including the fact that all charges were dropped) before it's added back in. -- Khazar (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is currently quite messy, as there are a number of different articles that speak about human rights in Iraq, in various times and scopes (see Human rights in Iraq) It is clear to me that something needs to be done, but that may require a larger conversation. Right now there is no consensus for this change. (non-admin closure) Bradv 01:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in post-invasion Iraq → Human rights in Iraq – Usually the title should discuss the current situation. Other topics should be disambiguated. 115.27.206.125 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in post-invasion Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed restructuring and updated headlines[edit]

Hello Editors, 

   I would like to collaborate on a possible restructuring and addition of certain new headlines in this article. The timeline of abuses is surely useful, but I believe other critical human rights categories should come first like: Education, The rights of women and children, Freedom of expression and assembly, Enforced or involuntary disappearances and the Death Penalty, Torture and Justice. These could be followed by specific events included in the timeline. Also, what time period are we focusing on for this article (does it span 2003-current day?)

I have already drafted some paragraphs to add, but wanted to see if anyone would want to discuss also restructuring the article. If not, I will simply add the facts I would like to add.

Thank you. Geneva International Centre for Justice (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq&oldid=1207129037"