Talk:Occupation of Iraq timeline

I am moving this similarly named page as well. MB 15:40 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's no longer 2003, so should this page be closed down and a new 2004 timeline started? Or, should this simply be moved to U.S.-led occupation of Iraq timeline, since the main article is called U.S.-led occupation of Iraq? I favor the second choice and will move it if there are no objections. --Minesweeper 05:24, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why are all these quotes by the various officials here? Is that really something that should be on this kind of timeline? - Andre Engels 14:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unless the quotes are a new statement of policy, I think they are irrelevent. Perhaps the quotes should be moved to a separate timeline. Also, this timeline should probably start on April 15, 2003, since that is when the "Iraq War Timeline" ends. If there is going to be information about what happened before April 15, they should be on topic-- they should deal with the establishment of the CPA and reconstruction in particular places of Iraq. I don't think that general US policy towards Iraq is appropriate. AdamRetchless 14:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What happened in November 2003?

If you look at a count of coalition casualties [1], you'll see that there was a huge number of casualties in November 2003. What happened then? I've scanned the web and can't figure out what caused all of those casualties. This timeline doesn't really indicate the cause either. It mentioned a single large event (downing of a helicopter), but that doesn't account for the sharp rise in casualties.

Other increases in casualties occured in April and August of 2004. The cause of those increases are indicated in this timeline (Falluja and Al Sadr), but their importance is not apparent. AdamRetchless 14:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Consolidate with Iraq timeline?

I know we'd like to keep these two topics separate, but since the news in Iraq for 2003 and 2004 IS the occupation / war, shouldn't we consolidate it? Jgardner 06:02, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

quotations or timeline?

This entry seems to transmogrify confusingly from a quotation book into a more normal timeline in mid-stream. I just noted that 2003 Invasion of Iraq says about this page, "See 2003–2004 occupation of Iraq timeline for the White House statements" so maybe the original intent was merely to document statements here. Obviously that's changed now. Anyway, I think it's odd and confusing. Sbwoodside 07:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have time to change it, but it definitely needs to be fixed.

End of occupation

The multinational forces in Iraq are @ the sovereign's request. June 28, 2004 should be the last date in this timeline. JDR 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a technicality, but if if the timeline is finished there, a new article should be created with everything after it. --66.168.50.185 05:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should only separate the article if we have a generally agreed upon definition of sovereignty. If the division is on the basis of nominal sovereignty as opposed to effective, then it should be stated thus, avoiding the ambiguous term sovereign. --Zachbe 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Some sources would be nice in this article, since this, as with all articles on Wikipedia, aspires to be an encyclopedia entry that can be edited by anyone. It is especially important since the peer moderation is scarce.

Vandalism for May 1 2003 timeline?

President George W. Bush declares major combat operations over. Mission Acomplished

That statement seems unencyclopedic. 65.93.36.72 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Like many other articles on war timeline, I support this article should be renamed as Iraq War timeline. And the other article, 2003 Iraq war timeline, will be renamed as 2003 invasion of Iraq timeline or Timeline of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 207.233.69.239 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]