Talk:Predicted effects of invading Iraq

Previously listed on VfD. Delisted as sources have been provided. These need to be worked into the article.

• Predicted effects of invading Iraq Attempting to 'predict' the effects of something is "primary research" (see What Wikipedia is not #10). (The page was also written by a user that has subsequently been banned.) Since Iraq has been invaded this page is now pointless. Maximus Rex 11:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability. Onebyone 16:09, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Presdumably there will be a history article on this, and therefore musings on "predictions" is political POV. Not for Wikipedia - Marshman 19:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, see my comment above. Pfortuny 22:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep, potentially useful with attributions.—Eloquence
  • Delete, moot --Jiang
  • Delete. Encylopedias should not have articles about the future. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But remove all material which is not sourced. [Fred Bauder]
    • None of it is sourced. Maximus Rex 15:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is usefull information in this article. Let's see what is not sourced. User:Anthere
    • Why do we need someone's old speculations on what 'might happen', when instead all we should report is what has happened? Maximus Rex 01:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • 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* it occurred is valid and meaningfull information in itself ? Are you suggesting all what is on Wikipedia is only what *really* occured ? and never what people think or believe or dream of ? Really Maximus ? :-) PomPom
    • We have several pages on Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is about the deletion of an article that made predictions (without sources) before the war occurred. Maximus Rex
      • Precisely. The articles we currently have on the topic are: Popular opposition to war on Iraq. It claims to explain why many people were opposed to the war. Practicaly, it starts by explaining that Some have speculated that western European countries were against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment.. 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...Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq only list the for and the against. That is not very informative about why there were against and why they are for...Global protests against war on Iraq is about the protests, not the reasons about the protests...plus a special article about the christian church position, Catholic Church against war on Iraq, 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 Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (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 no argument listed was sourced. True. As no argument given in Popular opposition to war on Iraq 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 really think need source, as you doubt a reasonable number of people used these arguments to oppose the invasion ?
    • If the information is useful in determining why people opposed this, then shouldn't this be merged with an article on opposition? --Jiang 01:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • 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.
  • 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. Kingturtle 06:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • 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 - Marshman 04:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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 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 :-)

• http://english.pravda.ru/region/2003/03/21/44768.html (I think this is should provide basic source for the ecological threats. These were mentionned as predicted effects as arguments against the war)
• http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2003/02/11/43273.html (some references about the fear for diplomatic consequences)
• http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03306/235829.stm (might have a couple arguments on some predicted effects)
• http://www.princeton.edu/~lisd/amin.html (great resource for political reasons, predictions and fear over what could occur)
• http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul43.html (some economical arguments not listed in the article I think)
• http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm (a nice set of arguments against, for fear of some effects)
• http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.HTM about the electromagnetic threats
• http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13898 this one is interesting, but there may be objections for using it as a source
• http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911555.html about tolerance of wmd in the hand of some nations

• For the role of the internet in mass media and forming public opinion, several articles from Wikipedia and desinfopedia should suffice as sources :-) (media manipulation perhaps ?

• 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.
• http://www.udf.org/presse/interviews/fb_lacroix_260203.html about fear of diplomatic implications (Bayrou is an important french politician)
• http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/515/515p17.htm about worries on Kurdistan as an independent region within Iraq
• http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/01-25-03/international_2.asp about fear on tourism drop as an argument against the war

ant

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. Angela. 22:51, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Follow-up

We should do a follow-up on these predictions. It seems to me most of the supporters' predictions came pass, and hardly any of the opponents'. --Uncle Ed 20:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that we should do a follow-up. It seems to me that, antithetical to Uncle Ed's observations, the opponents' predictions were more accurate than the supporters'. Perhaps we could compare these two planets and see whcih one more closely resembles earth. Kevin Baas 19:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I also do not see anything in this article about the economic impacts of the war. Many were predicting such things as $100/bbl oil prices. TDC 18:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you can get sources published before the war, then that would certainly be a relevant thing to put in here. Kevin Baas 22:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Name?: What should the follow up page be called? How about simply "Predicted effects of invading Iraq - follow up" or "Experienced effects of invading Iraq"?

Format?: To begin, I suggest we simply copy this page, changing the wording of the intro and whatever else is relevant, and then underneath each prediction, indented, state what actually happened, and then how it compares with the prediction. Kevin Baas 22:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

$100/bbl http://www.petroretail.net/npni/2002/0212/0212nws.asp TDC 23:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to create a page called "Actual effects of invading Iraq" as a follow-up to this one, in the format discussed. I don't want to create a page just to get it deleted right away, so if anyone has any objections, whether to the name or the page itself, speak now. (I will wait a few days.) Kevin Baas 16:07, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why do you need an extra page if there is already a page about the invasion and one about the occupation? Get-back-world-respect 16:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not an "extra" page, it is a "new" page. Secondly, the page would be about whether each prediction, specifically, did or did not come true, addressing them explicitly. This is a different topic than invasion and a different topic than occupation. Why this page? See discussion above, so far there are two people suggesting a follow up (me being one of them). It would be nice to have a larger sample size....

Another option would be to include the actual effects on this page, but this would require a change of name of the page to "predicted and actual effects of invading iraq". however, if someone did a google search for, say, "predicted effects of invading iraq", and the name was changed, they would not find the page unless redirects were set up. This is not an unreasonable option. If people prefer this route, speak up, if you prefer the other, speak up. Kevin Baas 19:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As you see above, there is already a dispute whether this page is needed. As Angela wrote, there is an accuracy dispute notice until the sources 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. This has not yet been achieved. Creating a new article before this one is somehow rewritten in a reasonable way just creates a bigger mess. Get-back-world-respect 00:00, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I assumed that those comments were old. However, regarding whether this page is needed, that dispute has already been resolved in the affirmative, twice. Kevin Baas 18:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Can someone explain to me why the content of this article shouldn't just be merged into 2003 invasion of Iraq and related to criticisms and supports of the invasion?

As for trying to determine "which predictions have come true", you're asking to be trapped in POV hell for eternity, IMO.

KeithTyler 01:14, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why it should be merged - because it is a different topic. 2003 invasion of iraq is a narrative; a history of events, settings, etc. This page is a specific one-by-one bulleted list of the "effects" of invading iraq.

"Which predictions came true" - being trapped in POV. I very strongly disagree. statements like "Oil prices have gone up.", "Terrorist activity has increased.", "over $400 billion dollars has been spent on the war", etc. are objective, measurable statements, not subject to POV. Most, if not all, of the statements on suggested page would be in this format. I would expect to see some hard-headed people try to dispute the facts, but that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed clearly apparant facts, not POV. Prediction is a lot more subject to POV than actual outcome. Kevin Baas 18:06, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

---

Refining this page

This article still needs a lot of refinement - more citations, for example. Kevin Baas 18:30, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

Minor change, major point

I've changed "weapons of mass destruction" to "arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." The point is that it should not be forgotten (as in my experience it often has) that the argument was not merely that Iraq had some WMD, but that it held a very formidable arsenal that necessitated immediate invasion. Powell asserted (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.06/) that Iraq had "between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent." That this wasn't true was made plainly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm) obvious later on (and also (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.un.world.reax/) to a lesser extent before (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1255650,00.html)), but I still see people arguing that the assertions were correct, that Iraq actually did have WMD, disregarding the difference between "some" and "an arsenal." For instance, this guy (http://www.worldthreats.com/Michael%20Moore/Responding%20to%20Michael%20Moore.htm) (number 11) argues that it's not true that no WMD have been found. I'd like to direct him to the Duelfer Report. There has been a tendency among war proponents to wish to change past assertions of "at least 100-500 tons of WMD" to "WMD" to "WMD programs" to "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Proponents spoke of weapons programs from the beginning, but they did not speak only of programs because the mere possibility of developing the ability to acquire WMD is not gripping. Rumsfeld said (http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-18rumsfeld.html) “He's amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including anthrax, botulism toxin, possibly smallpox. He's amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.”
In a nutshell, we should not permit the enormity of these assertions to be diminished.
I'm adding these cites into the article, of course. Mr. Billion 10:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That said, this article is far from neutral, doesn't cite sources for these assertions, and I haven't seen it improved much since I found it. Every single one of those claims should have a quote and source, because otherwise it's like trying to analyze an argument between two straw men. I'm adding a {{cleanup}} tag. Mr. Billion 22:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)