Talk:Gulf War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gulf War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Gulf War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 21, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 27, 2004, August 2, 2004, January 16, 2005, August 2, 2005, and August 2, 2006.

Naming the Gulf War was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gulf War. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Western Asia: Kuwait High‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kuwait (assessed as Top-importance).

Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Gulf War is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Military history: British / Canadian / European / French / Middle East / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Saudi Arabia Top‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq Top‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bush family (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family articles

United States: History Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Section sizes

Section size for Gulf War (63 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	19,497	19,497
Names	3,631	6,471
Operational names	2,334	2,334
Campaign names	506	506
Background	18,457	18,457
Invasion of Kuwait	7,321	9,161
Kuwaiti resistance movement	1,840	1,840
Run-up to the war	22	39,040
Diplomatic means	16,261	16,261
Military means	5,689	5,689
Creating a coalition	9,244	17,068
Justification for intervention	3,145	3,145
Public relations campaign targeting the public	4,679	4,679
Early battles	19	16,801
Air campaign	2,206	2,206
Iraqi Scud missile strikes on Israel and Saudi Arabia	11,748	11,748
Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia (Battle of Khafji)	2,828	2,828
Counter reconnaissance	3,715	3,715
Breach	7,068	7,068
Ground campaign	16,694	29,098
Liberation of Kuwait	3,702	3,702
Initial moves into Iraq	3,630	3,630
Coalition forces enter Iraq	5,072	5,072
End of active hostilities	6,615	6,615
Coalition involvement	2,842	12,542
Australia	1,220	1,220
Argentina	1,603	1,603
Canada	1,941	1,941
France	966	966
Italy	1,530	1,530
United Kingdom	2,440	2,440
Casualties	16	18,399
Civilian	7,890	7,890
Iraqi	2,484	2,484
Coalition	7,397	8,009
Friendly fire	612	612
Aftermath	50	32,279
Gulf War illness	4,903	4,903
Effects of depleted uranium	4,414	4,414
Highway of Death	2,229	2,229
Bulldozer assault	2,915	2,915
Palestinian exodus from Kuwait	2,709	2,709
Coalition bombing of Iraq's civilian infrastructure	2,256	2,256
Abuse of Coalition POWs	2,386	2,386
Operation Southern Watch	2,412	2,412
Sanctions	2,503	2,503
Draining of the Qurna Marshes	1,994	1,994
Oil spill	1,824	1,824
Kuwaiti oil fires	1,684	1,684
Cost	1,317	3,855
Effect on developing countries	2,538	2,538
Media coverage	5,601	5,601
Technology	2,970	5,097
Scud and Patriot missiles	2,127	2,127
Popular culture	1,248	1,248
See also	485	485
Notes	959	959
References	160	2,122
Works cited	1,962	1,962
Bibliography	11,014	12,871
Films	951	951
Novels	906	906
External links	5,863	5,863
Total	257,244	257,244

Italy

Why there is no mention about involvement of Italy in the conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.48.73.118 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016

Air bombardment claims

The site states "For 42 consecutive days and nights, the coalition forces subjected Iraq to the most intensive air bombardment in military history. The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties dropping 88,500 tons of bombs…" The data may be true, but the claim of "most intensive air bombardment in military history" is debatable and entirely subjective depending on what they are basing that claim on. Intensive means concentrated, but how are they determining that, by number/tonnage/area/sorties/time?

Until there is something to corroborate the claim, “the most” should either be changed to “one of the most” or “an” (with "in military history" removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.4 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Title?

Hello, All:

A user changed the title of this article from "Gulf War" to "Gulf war) Persian Gulf War)". This new title contains an obvious violation of how parentheses are used in English. However, rather than revert it, I felt a need to ask what people think the title should be. I think I prefer "Persian Gulf War (1990-91)" or maybe Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)".

Reviewing the section on Name in this article suggest to me that it might make sense just to revert it to "Gulf war". A future "Gulf war" could require it be changed again after some other "Gulf war" occurs. "Gulf war (1990-91)" or "Persian Gulf war (1990-91)" would move it to a title that would not likely need to change -- and would be more explicit in the title about the war to which this refers.

What do you think? DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I returned it to the previous title. If you would like to propose another title, feel free to start a WP:RM. I would not worry about future wars causing a name conflict. Wikipedia can handle it when it becomes a problem. MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the issue with referring to the gulf with it's name? 2406:3400:313:B310:6053:AEDB:60BA:D773 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove undcited claims in casualties 64.189.18.43 (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please give it time for the tag to be addressed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collectible banknotes

User:Tunakanski what is your source for 'the banknotes are still collectibles' as of 25 November 2024? Perhaps a better wording might be 'In 2017 the stolen banknotes were said to be a collectible for'.SovalValtos (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything that would have happened in the last seven years that would make the banknotes no longer a collectible item. I haven't found anything beyond the source cited in the article saying they are or were collectibles, but I've found various websites selling them for a decent amount, which could be a testament to the fact that they are still collectors items. Nonetheless, I'd support the change you suggested. Tuna

^VeniVidi_Vici 20:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]