Talk:History of Kuwait

	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).

History Top‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mesopotamian campaign was copied or moved into History of Kuwait with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Iraqi officials have, however, publicly indicated that they may again attempt to occupy Kuwait by force.

Because of the inflamatory nature of the above comment in present circumstances, it needs to be accompanied by credible sources. What officials said this? Eclecticology 07:56 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

And when?Vera Cruz

Cleanup

Theres a lot to be said about this article. Namely, the disorganization of references. They do exist, however they are spread out and several pieces of information cannot be verified. Furthermore, poor grammar is quite common in a few areas. -Zer0fighta 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indead this article contradicts the other wikipedia articles about Kuwait. It shows one side of the story without the references one is looking for. In other words it doesn't meet the wikipedia standards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.131.17 (talk) 16:21 UTC, 27 February 2007

Particularly the paragraph about the Uqair Protocol is contradictive: Once the Kuwait-Iraqi border is said to be established in 1923 and re-affirmed in 1927; while the last paragraph sees its origin in 1913, recognized in 1932. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.29.32 (talk) 09:46 UTC, 2 November 2007

I feel a cleanup is required in terms of bias and misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baqarah47 (talk • contribs) 18:16 UTC, 19 April 2007

What's this "watheeka magazine (third edition) second year, July 1983, p14" ? What's the article title ? By whom ? Who publishes it ? Any web link to it ? If unanswered soon, this will have to go, and what it supports will have to be tagged "reference needed". --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC

Missing history 1961 - 1990

There is a large gap in this article regarding Kuwait's history from independence in 1961 until the Iraqi occupation in 1990. This is considered the most period of Kuwait's history and should not be neglected.

Clean up

I have tried to clean up the article but am sure there exists more things to be cleaned. Shriram (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference doesn't validate claims

The reference doesn't substantiate the claims, it's doesn't confirm the claims being made. The reference is useless. Incorectforma (talk • contribs) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What reference? What claims? To what specific claims do you refer and what does the source say? I see you cited WP:FAKE in your removal of a reference, but that's for actual fakes and not genuine sources that happen not to support the claims they are used for. You also claimed it was "wrong format", but there is nothing wrong with the citation format that I can see. You need to clearly explain what you think is the problem here, in a precise way so that people can understand what you are saying - people reading this page can't read your mind. Squinge (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Apologies, I reverted a good change you made there too - you correctly changed the title of a citation. Squinge (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Founding of modern Kuwait" section, there's an entire paragraph dedicated to the Bani Utbah's sedentarization. That's unnecessary because the Bani Utbah aren't among Kuwait's earliest inhabitants (Bani Khalid and Huwala are). The Bani Ubah's pattern of sedenterization isn't relevant to the history of Kuwait. It's undue weight, Kuwait existed before the Bani Utbah (since Kuwait was a fishing village part of the Bani Khalid Emirate). Historical sources attest that Kuwait's earliest inhabitants are the Bani Khalid and Huwala. There's a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to Kuwait, undue weight given to a certain group is a violation of Wikipedia rules. The format of the citation appears as a PDF download on my computer. Incorectforma (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change dating system to Common Era

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system. This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]