Talk:Iraqi Revolt

Removal of 'POV-label'

Since no reference is given on this talk page to any bias in the article, I am removing the 'POV-label'. The article is clearly in need of improvements, though. For one, I suggest changing the title to "The Iraqi revolt of 1920". --SimmiBoi 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and would have thought this was uncontroversial

• Iraqi revolt against the British - Anglocentric
• Great Iraqi Revolution -Iraqicentric
• Iraqi revolt of 1920 - centric neutral

...but then I read further...

JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Page moves

This page has been moved three times from "Iraqi revolt against the British" to "Great Iraqi revolt of 1920", without discussion or even a particularly convincing explanation. It has been moved back to the original title, and there is no consensus for a change. It is unacceptable to move a page in this cavalier fashion; I have reverted the move again and requested move protection. If there is a good reason to move this page it should be through the RM process, as it is obviously controversial. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Iraqi revolt against the British" is a description. One that appears 107 times in the literature. "Great Iraqi Revolution" is a proper noun, which is why it is used 522 times in the literature. "1920 Iraqi Revolt" is only used 45 times. The common name is "Great Iraqi Revolution", which is also the proper noun.

Likewise, on Google Scholar, "Great Iraqi Revolution" appears 32 times, "Iraqi revolt against the British" appears 16 times, and "1920 Iraqi Revolt" appears 8 times. Adel (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think your title is better, make a move request and see if anyone agrees with you. That is the correct way to do something like this. If there's enough support, it'll get moved. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I went to the WP:RM page and it states that if a move is uncontroversial, "do it yourself!" I think the present title is generic and very non-descriptive. To me, a move to "Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920" would be uncontroversial and in accord with the way most scholars and RP name the revolt. We don't need to get bogged down in bureaucracy unnecessarily, unless there is something controversial about the name change other than that it wasn't done according to (an incorrectly perceived) 'proper procedure'.Haberstr (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

On the strength of the evidence above I have moved it to Great Iraqi Revolution. – Fayenatic London 08:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Pages that have been the subject of move discussions or previously contested moves should only be moved after consensus is determined through a requested move. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Iraki revolt against the British - use of gas

Robert Fiske, in The Great War for Civilization - The Conquest of the Middle East says that the British used mustard gas against both the Kurds and the Shia insurgents in 1920, with the full knowledge and even the urging of Winston Churchill. (Harper Perennial, 2006, p. 178.) 24.200.41.250 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article said that Britain used "poison gas". It seems more thought and discussion of this had occured on the History of Iraq page. Assuming that page is correct, then "poison gas" is an incorrect description of white phosphorus bombs.

Not exactly. The use of poison gas was authorised but logistical issues and the effectiveness of other meathods mean that it was likely never used.Geni 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Discussed in Gas in Mesopotamia but dubious Hugo999 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi revolt against the British → Great Iraqi Revolution – see discussion above – --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Fayenatic London 22:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Doing a search for "Iraqi revolt of 1920" on Books, I found 429 hits, so I wouldn't say the "Great Iraqi Revolution" is overwhelmingly the common name. --Article editor (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Prefer 1920 Iraqi Revolt. More precise. More concise. Revolution reads as implying completion, or success, which is misleading. The revolt did not succeed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

British strength

Infobox states that the British strength was 120,000 men. The cited source says 80 British and Indian battalions (120,000 troops) which is highly unlikely both for number of battalions (about a quarter of the battalions of the entire British and Indian Armies combined) and total number (a battalion would be about 1,000 strong). Hamish59 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Umranhajsadon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Full british victory?

Greater autonomy was giving to Iraq, mandate was cancelled and soon the occupation was over. I think we should put a more specific result, something like “British military victory” “partial Iraqi victory” IbrahimWeed (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Political victory for the rebels?

This claim has been inserted a number of times by various editors, although it is not supported by sources. The pages cited from Reclaiming Iraq credits the uprising as the dawn of modern Iraq, without which the British would have carved the mandate into separate territories. This is accurate, but let's not forget the crucial fact that the rebels fought to oust Britain. Instead, Iraqis became subjects to a king installed by Britain, and would have to wait more than a decade before being granted independence. This was hardly a victory for the rebels, political or otherwise. Unless editors can provide a source that clearly states that this was a political victory for the rebels, this claim should be removed. (By the same standard, the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine was a political victory for the rebels because of the subsequent White Paper of 1939.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are the Assyrians fighters removed?

despite being mentioned in the article "the battle of the assyrians" I like to believe that the Assyrians were removed from the Belligerents list so that they could remove our name from history because during 1920 Arabs revolt assyrian forces who were veterans of the first world destroyed Arab forces so they remove Assyrians from the list 185.106.28.8 (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Nah, there are no evidences that "Assyrians" participated in the campaign nor did they "destroy" the "Arab forces" that attacked them. Don't ruin wikipedia with your nationalist fantasies. 37.237.117.9 (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)