Jump to content

Talk:Iraq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.6.158.33 (talk) at 13:32, 22 October 2007 (→‎Name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Somebody who had access ought to change the first sentence of the 'economy' section. Bokan.ABDULLAHI

Template:WP1.0

Template:FAOL

Archive
Archives
Archive index
Chronological Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Horrible scholarship. Obviously a biased article that needs reworking.

Why is US involvement in Iraq completely omitted in this article until 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait? The United States was fairly active in Iraqi politics well into the 60's -- active enough to help stage a coup. Why is Wikipedia sanctioning incomplete data about the US's direct involvement with the formation of the Republic? The CIA's involvement isn't a crack conspiracy theory, nor is it a mystery; several articles on Wikipedia already refer to it, such as the article for John Kennedy.

Sounds to me like our great, democratic online project is catering to specific somebodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K4rm4k4z3 (talk • contribs) 19:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Your point is a valid one, but instead of complaining, why not add to the article with verifiable sources?

SteveRamone 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

There are great maps of religions, langauges and provinces of Iraq on http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

Does anyone know how to load them here on the Iraq pages? Those that are already here are really bad--usually simply wrong!

Mark Ammiano

The only reputable study of deaths caused by the conflict was The Lancet study. This places the mid-point estimate of deaths at 655,000. Another study, the Iraq Body Count project puts the death toll at less than 10% of this however, this uses reports from media sources and has no proven basis for this as a valid methodology.

This is astonishingly biased. The IBC project is by far the most respected and relied upon source of casualty figures. The Lancet Report is EXTREMELY controversial, and is usually not quoted excepted in highly "political" contexts.

The Lancet study was a scientifically based attempt. IBC, which only relies on dual-sourced media reports (and does not include many Iraqi media sources) is, at best, a lower bound. The Lancet study, which uses standard statistical methods, can validly talk about a "mid-point" but, to be fair, the confidence intervals should be included, to show that Lancet is really saying it is within some number of 100s of thousands of 655,000 with 99% confidence. JoshNarins 10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Tony Blair's statement that Britain was at risk of attack within 45 minutes means that the weapons program was still under (very rapid) development? Please do not try and put your lies into this article. 74.103.34.126 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think article should be marked as non-neutral until it is thoroughly reviewed and fixed. {{editprotected}} Erikmartin 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

☒N This is not an appropriate subject of a protected page edit request. Please wait four days for your account to become autoconfirmed, then you can edit the article for yourself. Try and seek consensus for these changes on this page in the meantime. Sandstein 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is a sign of weak mind. Please people - write your own words. It is not THAT hard!

Sign in the Green Zone (IZ) in Baghdad, Iraq (April 2004).

Plagiarism is so pervasive online, and sadly on wikipedia as well. Often when I run into the exact same words on wikipedia and elsewhere I am rather sure the other sites stole from wikipedia. However, here I find whole sentences lifted right from the CIA world factbook entry on Iraq! Now, don't get me wrong... I am certain the CIA is quite willing to stoop to plagiarism (hell, they TORTURE people, after all, so what do they care if they piss off English teachers like myself?) but I rather doubt they did in THIS case.

One quick example: 1st sentence in this article's section on economy and 1st sentence in equivalent cia factbook section. It greatly reduces the credibility of the site when you do this, so just don't. If you can't manage to use your OWN words then please don't use any. When you plagiarize you are hurting, not helping, the site. Really there is no excuse, not when you can so easily get help with your writing from others devoting time and effort to improve wikipedia. --Fitzhugh 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Civilization?

iraq has first civilization? sumer? this should be deleted and corrected very soon. so what about the sind civilization in pakistan and civilizations such as burned city and jiroft in IRAN? if iraq had the first civilization, so why today they are too uncivilized?

how r u 2 rag on iraqi civilization when u can't even speel. l2com, nub -- k4rm4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by K4rm4k4z3 (talk • contribs) 19:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Iraqis are not uncivilized people, that is an assault thats truly uncalled for and nothing but a sign of ignorance and nationalist extremism. Furthermore, a countrys' degree of civilization in today has very little to do with its degree of civilization 5000 years ago.

The issue of the first civilization is speculative and doubtful. How about China?

agreed -- "first civilization" should be changed to "one of the earliest known civilizations". Similarly, in the Ancient History section "these civilizations produced the earliest writing" should be changed to "these civilizations produced some of the earliest known writing." I believe we definitely know of earlier writing, such as the Indus Valley Script. As for the location of truely the first civilization, that is an unknown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikmartin (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Since there are various definitions of "civilization", it might be better if we could name a particular achievement that occurred first in the area of the present Iraq. By "civilization" do we mean the introduction of horticulture, a specific level of technology, communal organization and division of labour, urbanization, or what? --Boson 11:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the first known literacy/recorder histroy is meant??? Arnoutf 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civilization has the following intro "The term civilization has a variety of meanings related to human society. Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities." The Sumerians were one of the first to build large cities, have agriculture and the division of labour between farmers, merchants and rulers. Dabbler 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, for example, even in Iraq, Hassuna 'culture' was older than Sumer, and they even had their pottery, but it's not acknowledged as civilization.

It is interesting that now-a-days nothing may be stated with certainty. "one of the earliest known civilizations," "some of the earliest known writing,"..... Logically, one among those "earliest know civilizations" is THE oldest. Well, which one is it, or have we become so insanely politically correct that we think it would hurt the feelings of another nation if they just happened not to be the oldest, mostest, bestest ...etc. etc.? Writing as is known to mankind was developed in Iraq and the immediate surrounding territories (Zagros mountain and foothills) nearly six thousand years ago. All other types of writing know at present, are younger, to include most certainly the Indus Valley style of writing. In fact all forms of writing, short of those of the Mayans, originate in those produced by the early civilizations of Mesopotamia/Iraq. This includes the Chinese, Indian, Caucasian, Ethiopic, and all European forms of writing.

Let us stop confusing ourselves at the alter of political correctness and instead, learn how the human civilization developed (for real, not the current PC type)

Those are some broad claims some of which, I honestly have not heard before particularly that civilization and ALL Eurasian/African writing came from mesopitamia and surrounding areas can you link some souces. I really do not care about PCness just link some good sources for this claim and your good.

The effect of the US invasion on reconstruction

What is the statement in Iraq#Reconstruction that

Reconstruction of Iraq has been difficult [...] due to [...] the influx of the US invasion

supposed to mean? The US invasion caused the damage and once it was complete, then reconstruction began, so the invasion which is no longer in progress can't be really getting in the way, can it?--Rudjek 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This War is a real big fake to maintain control of iraq oil, NO More Blood for Money!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.21.237.144 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Territories under military occupation

I see that the article was recently categorized as Territories under military occupation. Since, according to the article Multinational force in Iraq, the occupation formally ended on June 28, 2004, and there appears to be a status of forces agreement with the sovereign government, this would not appear to be NPOV. I propose reversion. --Boson 01:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the government of Iraq sovereign? --- Safemariner 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly speculation that the Maliki government heavily depends on US military support to stay in power.

Category:Alleged puppet states

The categorization under "Alleged puppet states" carries the risk of spreading allegations without indicating by whom the allegations are made. I propose reversion. Perhaps the whole category should be deleted. At the very least, it should only be used for articles that detail such allegations and state the source of the allegations. Puppet state: "The term is partisan and prone to semantic disputes, used almost exclusively by detractors of such governments, whether or not the majority of citizens affected acknowledge the characterization, or object to that kind of government. Often a proclaimed puppet government faces a rival government which uses the puppet government term to weaken the legitimacy of that government. Also usually implied is the government's lack of legitimacy, in the view of those using the term."--Boson 07:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, all the top leaders of the Iraqi government are 'guarded' directly by American troops or indirectly by American security companies paid by the American government. Do any of the leaders so guarded have the freedom to oppose American guidance and so risk being labelled a terrorist sympathizer and being arrested (or worse) by the very persons who guard them? --- Safemariner 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are doubtless a number of arguments that one could adduce to support the POV that Iraq is a puppet state (of the USA or Iran), but that is not the point, in my opinion. Categorizing Country X as an alleged puppet state is equivalent to stating that unnamed entities have alleged that Country X is a puppet of another unnamed entity. Such a category merely encorages making unverified, pejorative POV statements that are probably too vague even to be falsified. There are also a number of implied assumptions, for instance that it is sensible to classify states into alleged puppet states and others, and that states not so categorized have not been alleged to be puppet states. In fact many states have been alleged to be puppet states:
  • Israel is allegedly a puppet state of the USA
  • The USA is allegedly a puppet state of the Zionists.
  • Palestine is allegedly a puppet state created by the Arab nations to destabilize the Zionist Entity.
  • Syria, the Lebanon, and Iraq allegedly are (or were or will be) puppet states of Iran.
  • Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, North Korea, . . . .
  • etc. etc. --Boson 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to propose that the category be deleted as it is inherently a POV category. This page is not the forum to discuss if a category is a POV category. You can propose this category's deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I will even support its deletion. However, as long as the category exists, Iraq would be a good candidate for it. --- Safemariner 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Safemariner, I'm just curious, do you consider Japan a pupet state of the U.S.? --Erikmartin 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category Mistake on page I do not know how to edit on Wiki, but in the Iraq article there is a reference to the Iraq-Iran war being fought with water guns... I guess that is an abuse...

Temporary governments

So let me get this straight...first there was the CPA, then the IGC, then the IIG and then the ITG? Any more transitional governments in the history of this obviously very provisional country? I mean, come on, how much care can a government take? VolatileChemical 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

under the Ottoman empire section

I noticed the date of 1509 doesn't fit, is it supposed to be 1609?

Finwar 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think it would be 1534. I don't understand why there is so few written about this period, which is one of the longest period of Iraq's history!??

Saddam Hussein

The word "preventitive" should be "preemptive". The Israelis made a preemptive strike on the nuclear facility to prevent Iraq from making weapons grade fissionable material. 64.16.131.2 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Jon_Low 16:32, 13 February 2007[reply]

US DOD usage (DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms)
"preemptive attack (DOD) An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent."
"preventive war (DOD) A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk."
I think "preventive" is closer. --Boson 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, bombing A facility is hardly a war. Second, the first description is better if a proper description of what 'imminent' is refering to can be shown. 218.215.136.203 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that "pre-emptive" is much more short-term. I am not suggesting replacing "attack" by "war".--Boson 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This period is notorious for the Saddam regime's human rights abuses, for instance, during the Al-Anfal campaign" especially the word "notorious" is a bit disturbing regaring the circumstances in that area... i do not doubt that, but reaching our (i.e. european, usa, japan) level of human rights took some time, and the current situation there is even worse than it was when bad old saddam was in power (regarding # of deaths per day...)

Population

I changed the population and if the old numbers are correct of 28 million that means the population of Iraq has dropped by 2 million in one yearPotaaatos 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 million in one year seems slightly on the high side. This source has about 2 milllion since 2003.

"The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates that some 2 million people out of a population of 26 million have left Iraq since the US-led war in 2003 . . . ."

--Boson 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple million fled from the country and one million killed since the U.S. invasion.

-G

however this neglects the fact that iraq has one of the highest population growth rates in the world, 30+ per 1000 and a death rate just of 11 so they are growing at 2.9% per year as per Unicef -- and there were about 2 million refugees from iraq under sadaam, some of whom came back.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.195.21 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


here is a ling for the birth and death rate statistics http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_advanced_data_extract_fm.asp?HYrID=2005&HSrID=13580%2C13600&HCrID=368&continue=Continue+%3E%3E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.195.21 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Also note the article the poster above sites is just a statement made two and a half years ago, the official and current population estimate of iraq from the United Nations and World Bank is about 28 million. These estimates are more current than the article cited above. The link to them is posted at the bottom of this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.195.21 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN's report on population trends i 2005 has iraq at 28 million and growing at a 2.9% a year http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.195.21 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the United Nations High Commission actually has the population of Iraq as 27.5 million as of 2007. the report mentioned above is from 2005 here is the link

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=46ee679667 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigailadams2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Another version of the origin of the name widely accepted:

The word عراق is the Arabic version (معرٌب) of the word Arak. Arak was the name of an area as well as a small river (that does not exist anymore) in the middle of the ancient Iran, literally meaning “the middle of Iran”. After the invasion of Arabs in the 7th century A.D., the area in the middle of Iran was called عراق عجم (Iraq of Iran) for this same reason. Today, the city Arak in that area receives her name from the same root. The area currently known as Iraq worldwide was named Iraq of Arab (عراق عرب) to distinguish it from Iraq of Iran and at the time to proudly announce that Arabia is so big that this area is in the middle of it. Later the name was given to this country.

The name Uruk (Uruq) does mean "two rivers" in Arabic/Aramaic but is very unlikely to be the origin as it is used for small rather than large rivers.

Your article suggests that the country was called Iraq of Arab under the Sasanid Empire. That’s incorrect. The word Iraq of Arab appears in the literature much later than the Sasanids.

Does anyone even pay attention to the discussions? The Name section of this article has serious flaws and should be revised!

What is the English translitteration of "Federal Republic of Iraq"? - unsigned comment

How did the country get its name?

The etymology section discusses the origin of the word "Iraq", but does not explain how the country got the name. Who decided that this region would be officially named Iraq? Where in the article is this explained? - Drogo Underburrow 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section still starts out using the passive. I cleaned up the first sentence to eliminate useless words, but left it in the passive. Somebody want to fix this?

Secondly, just who is this article written for? The public, or the editors? The public, including myself, for the most part cannot understand the gobbledygook that is the symbols given for how to pronounce the word "Iraq". I call this sort of junk ego writing, done to satisfy the person who wrote it, but almost useless to the public, a waste of space. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this sort of junk doesn't belong. Drogo Underburrow 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I see that the article has lots of Persian influence which seems to be unneccessary & unacceptable by the Iraqi pop....like the name suggestion about Arak is defineitely incorrect since the name Iraq in Arabic was used long before Sassaid occupation & what is the purpose of the following sentence in the article:......Close to the coast and along the Shatt al-Arab (known as arvandrūd: اروندرود among Iranians) there used to be marshlands, but many were drained in the 1990s.... why is it even mentioned?? every region has different nomenclature in different languages......like Tehran in Arabic is named طهران. Actually if you take a look at the Baghdad article you'll see that persian is mentioned more than Baghdad or Iraq or Arabic...why is it so much Persian nationalistic influence on Iraq-& Arabic related articles. Actually if you consider "persian" nomenclature, if you go back to its origin the majority of it is of Arabic origin...but it is not mentioned in the Iran-related articles..why is wikipedia being so much BIASED & manipulated to serve other peoples intentions??? Something really funny in the Iran history article...they jump over certain centuries in the history when the Arabs ruled persia. Please do something because Wikipedia is not trustful anymore for gaining the real facts.Iraswe

The Motto

Is not it "God is One" ?

'Regime' change

'Regime' is a very negative word for government, and using it, at least in my opinion, breaches NPOV. Plenty of undemocratic governments are referred to as, indeed, governments, so the use of the word 'regime' pushes a certain value. I'm tempted to rectify all of it's instances in this article, as I am in other articles, but I'd like some consensus and debate on it first. Black-Velvet 04:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share some of your NPOV concerns about the use of "regime" for a government but I think the use in this article is OK. I see the following legitimate uses of "regime":
  • To refer to the time that a single person is in power. For monarchies, the term "rule" or "reign" would be appropriate. For dictatorships or one-party systems these words are not appropriate, but a similar word is necessary. I think "regime" fills this gap as an objective way of referring to the period.
  • It can refer to the system of running a country, whereas "government" refers to a particular, constitutionally legitimized part of that system (and is used differently in parliamentary and presidential systems). In democratic republics, the distinction may not be very important, but a separate word may be necessary in dictatorships or systems where actual practice differs significantly from the written constitutional order and power is wielded by bodies loyal to a dictator or other leader but not part of the government. This use may be perceived as disparaging in the United States, but this itself may be POV, in the same way as "communist" or "dictator" might be seen as insults in the USA but would be objective descriptions in openly communist or dictatorial regimes.
  • Particularly when referring to abuses, "government", rather than "regime", might imply that the abuses were legitimately sanctioned by the government.
I found the following uses of "regime" in the article. I don't think "government" is appropriate in any of them. I would, personally, tend to leave them, but have tentatively suggested alternatives (in parentheses) in case "regime" is considered disparaging.
  • "There have been many large-scale waves of emigration from Iraq, beginning early in the regime (rule) of Saddam Hussein (or: shortly after Saddam Hussein came to power) and continuing through 2007."
  • "This period is notorious for the regime's (omit "the regime's) human rights abuses, such as those during the Al-Anfal campaign."
  • "It was crippled by Israeli aircraft in 1981 in a preventive strike to prevent the regime of Saddam Hussein (Iraq) from using the reactor for the creation of nuclear weapons."
  • "There have been many large-scale waves of emigration from Iraq, beginning early in the regime of Saddam Hussein (after Saddam Hussein came to power) and continuing through 2007."
  • "The ongoing violence in Iraq has been incited by an amalgam of religious extremists that believe an Islamic Caliphate should rule, old sectarian regime members that had ruled under Saddam (people who had held positions of power under Saddam Hussein) that want back the power they had, and Iraqi nationalists that are fighting the U.S. military presence." --Boson 18:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe you are right, regime sounds quite bad, noone would call it the "bush regime", or the "blair regime", regime is something quite bad, and thus a point of view "POV". Especially regarding the current situation in iraq... as far as people killed per day is concerned, i would vote for saddam rather than bush... (very odd opinion, please discuss) 81.152.206.175 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The End Of Iraq ? (an invented country)

As the beginning of the article says Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War. It seems likely if not inevitable that the country will be partitioned three ways with the Sunnis to the left of the Euphrates, the Shia to the right and an independent Kurdistan coming into existence in the North. Should the article have some mention of this? Also the borders of present day Iraq are invented and the political entity is artificial. The article does not make that clear. SmokeyTheCat 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up Iraq into sectarian micro-nations may be the intent of American strategy, but it is not what the majority of Iraqi people themselves seem to want. BBC report on Iraqi opinion Dabbler 11:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have strongly thought that US strategy is to keep Iraq together. However the only thing that unites the Sunni and Shia groupings is their mutual antagonism to the US/UK occupation. SmokeyTheCat 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Arif

Is he still alive or what? Hes either 88 or 90 but i havent heard anything about him in iraq.Vital Component

invented country

dividing iraq would mean dividing the whole arab world. even the americans are not stupid enough to "want" that. this would be an even greater mess than it already is... the kurds might love to reunite with their brothers in Turkey (a NATO member) the Shia might love to join Iran (a rogue state), and the Sunnis...well maybe palestine (almost anarchy)... it would lead to some chaos... maybe fair borders in the end... but is there really no way go there peacefully? I believe that it will take a while to settle this. it will not be easy! it will take casualties! but god dammit: the europeans killed each other for even longer, but where are they now? We should try to calm them down and, over generations wounds will heal and they might find a way to live together... its just a project that requires more than one president working on it, maybe five to ten.... well 40-80 years from now maybe (optimistically)...

Divding poeple is never successful, bringing them together sometimes ... lets try it - over and over again...

81.152.206.175 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war?

From the opening paragraph: "Today, it is a developing nation in the midst of a civil war." Is that the consensus? Wasn't there just a poll of Iraqis where 60% said it was not a civil war?--Daveswagon 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Biased?++ This seems all biased and untrue. Please include some real facts.

Excuse me, but, do you need a majority of the Iraqi population to agree about if there is or not a civil war? This same Wikipedia has a definition for civil war you probably should consult and see if it fits the case of Iraq's current situation. Gabrielx 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on civil war points out, there is no consensus definition. Some of the definitions are intended to differentiate a civil war from other wars, but it also has to be a war, not just terrorism, semi-organized murder, or skirmishes between religious or political groups. It comes down to what definition is most useful, from a neutral point of view, for an international English-language encyclopaedia. I find the definition at http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060728-iraq-civil-war.htm helpful:
"A civil war is a war between factions of the same country. There are five criteria for international recognition of this status: The contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces and engage in major military operations."
So I would ask:
  • Do the insurgents control territory?
  • Do the insurgents have a functioning government?
  • Do the insurgents have "identifiable regular armed forces?"
  • Do the insurgents engage in major military operations?
--Boson 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • well to answer this i would say yes (e.g falludja and the country-side), yes (a clerical, islamistic), yes (many of them) and yes (they even attack the green zone and the parliament accepted by the US)
  • some other important questions would be:
  • how much of the territory of the iraq is controlled by the official government?
  • how "functioning" is this government?
  • and: what will happen when the us troops will go home? (Democracy, another Dictator or an Islamic state)?

81.152.206.175 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Removed bit about Nasser provoking July 14 Revolution

I removed the following, it should either be reworded so it doesn't start off with "It is unknown...." and the reference cited or left out as speculation.

"It is unknown whether the changes in Iraqi government beginning in 1958 were at least partially orchestrated by Egyptian President Nasser as part of his goal to draw Iraq into the United Arab Republic.[citation needed]" Dabbler 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied

Iraq is currently occupied by the US -Mrsanitazier 9:09 AM Eastern Time

USA-centric article

Thank you to the editors for this interesting article. Because I am a new user, please could somebody add the template {{Globalize/USA}} for the following reasons:

1. (Main reason) In particular, this excerpt represets a definitely US view of Iraq:

"Iraq was home to the earliest known civilization, Sumer. Today, it is a developing nation that has gained considerable international attention because of the Iraq War."

Outside of the US, Iraq was of interest to its neighbours, to scholars, to Muslims, and many other people. It's only some people from some contries who were ignorant about Iraq before they decided to wage war on it.

2.The section about the American war on Iraq is far too long. I'm not saying it's good or bad content, accurate or inaccurate, or anything. It's just that this is the world's oldest civilisation, and the length of this section is disproportionate to the significnce of this war in the 5000+ years of Iraqi civilisation.

Thanks.

Hello. Thanks for your comments. I did not put the {{Globalize/USA}} on the article, because I'm not sure it's warranted. In response to your objections;
1. I changed the objectionable sentence to "Today, it is a developing nation that has recently recieved increased international attention because of the Iraq War." I think this addresses your concern that Iraq was of interest to some people before the invasion while still making the point that it is of interest now to people it was not of interest to before. Let me know if you disagree.
2. I don't think the two sections on the war are too long - rather I think the sections on its older history are far, far too short. However, this isn't an indication of US bias so much as it is an indication of recentism - a bias towards recent events. I'm not sure so much what to do about that though.
~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I did register an account but its not of use yet as I am still a new user and the article is locked.
Re. 1. I think your edit is an improvement and fairer, but I'm still not sure how I would feel if I were an Iraqi reading the article. Another way of looking at this is to imagine whether I would be right in adding right now the following to the opening of the USA article:
"the US is a country with a short history of civilization which gained considerable international attention because of the Iraq War".
It seems ridiculuous, but it's only the same comment in reverse. How about "Today, it is a developing nation that is the focus of increased attention from the West because of the Iraq War."
Re. 2. I agree that maybe its an issue of the length of the other sections.
I am the same anonymous person as above. How about adding the following as the second paragraph of the intro, after "Persian Gulf"? I removed the disputed reference to being the earliest civilization, and translated a bit from the French version of the article.
"Modern-day Iraq covers a large area of Mesopotamia, one of the cradles of civilisation. It was on the banks of the Tigress , which passes through the capital Baghdad, that writing was born. During its long history, it has been variously part of the Persian, Ottoman and British empires.
Today, it is a developing nation that is the focus of increased attention from the West because of the Iraq War. For recent information on Iraq, please see Iraq war."
What do you think?
I think those are good changes. I copied them to the article for you, and made some minor adjustments. I left off the last sentence as I thought the first link to Iraq War was sufficient. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I like your changes and I think its a big improvement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.34.223 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Basically, the US has now lost all global credibility due to the Iraq War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.147.131 (talk) 11:08, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of the Ottoman Empire and Islamist Society

It was almost 25% Christian prior to WWI. Lebanon just before the Civil War was 60% now it's only 30% if even that. The Islamists aka Mujahadeen cannot have non-Muslims governing Muslims. It is against their beliefs which you see they kill for. In no way do I include all Muslims because most Muslims couldn't live with them. They don't even want to live under laws made for people living at a time when lands were uncivilized. Any educated person in the middle east with the ability to reason understands biblical/islamic laws were implemented in a time of uncivilized society. They the Mujahadeen have created this situation in Iraq themselves for the sole reason of implementing the old laws again aka Sharia. Sharia is basically Mosaic law from the old testament. It's not that much different. That's like bringing back the Salem Witch Trials in the US in this day and age. I'm sure there are lunatic fundamentalist that wouldn't mind trying people for that but that is an old ideology. It doesn't take a genius to see that power lies within the Religious institution in Theocratic governance and it's much easier to learn religion and be religious than it is to become educated through the Arts and Sciences. Keep reading the same stories over and over and over analyzing them to suit your needs and goals or continuously develop your mind through reason and adjust to societies changes... which is easier and more convenient? Obviously reinterpreting religious laws to suit your cause.Sharru Kinnu III

Minor nitpick

I'm new so I can't do this myself yet, but can someone please change the name of the river in the second paragraph so that it does not erroneously refer to a female Tiger? Amateur Mendicant 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.8 spelling

Section 2.8 2003 Invasion by US lead Coalition Forces

This should be US led, not lead. The title seems long and awkward and could be changed to 2003 invasion

Waj 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


leaders?

Does this article say who is leading Iraq right now? I would like someone to please tell me so i can find out. wikipedia should know this but i can't find it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.248.158.30 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Al Qaeda?

This segment under "Post-invasion Iraq" is a bit confusing:

"After the invasion, al-Qaeda took advantaged of the insurgency to entrench itself in the country[9]"

The article that #9 links to does not support the statement that it accompanies. In fact, it seems to defy that statement. Am I mistaken? Mullah Nasrudin 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Government links to Al-Qaeda" is just a little strange. How about "unsubstantiated claims of government links to Al-Qaeda"?

Spelling error in Post-Invasion Iraq

The article reads: "al-Qaeda took advantaged of the insurgency" Where it should read: "al-Qaeda took advantage of the insurgency" Although to further remove bias I would change it to read: "al-Qaeda operatives entered Iraq during the insurgency" Or something to that effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.198.233.11 (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Corrected to "advantage" --h2g2bob (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq's national security adviser...

I just saw Iraq's national security adviser (Stephen Hadley's counterpart) on PBS. His class, eloquence, confidence, and dogged optimism was pleasantly uplifting. Does anyone know his name, or where I can find info about him here on Wikipedia? Also, perhaps, if an article on him exists, the Iraq article could link to his article. --Remi 08:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent, I think, is the Minister of State for National Security. The current office-holder is Shirwan al-Waili. As to your suggestion: I don't think the articles should be directly linked. By following the link from Politics in Iraq you can find his article without too much difficulty. RedRabbit1983 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"islamic culture"

In the most recent millennium, what is now Iraq has been made up of five cultural areas: Kurdish in the north centered on Arbil, Sunni Islamic Arabs in the center around Baghdad, Shi'a Islamic Arabs in the south centered on Basra, the Assyrians, a Christian people, living in various cities in the north, and the Marsh Arabs, a nomadic people, who live on the marshlands of the central river. Markets and bartering are the common form of trade.

"islamic" in this context should be replaced by "muslim" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.154.197 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If everyone agrees, I would like to add the following to the Overviews section:

Iraq Image: http://www.iraqimage.com

A resourceful cultural and news site that displays Iraqi locations, cities, neighborhoods and enable browsing the satellite images for 40 cities using Google Map API. jarmo99(talk) 15:11, 28 May 2007 (EST)

First Sentence

I think the following part of the first sentence should be moved to etymology ((...conventional short form: Iraq) (Arabic: العراق (help·info) transliteration: 'al-‘Irāq,Turkish: Irak, Assyrian: ܥܪܐܩ, Kurdish: عيَراق)). Thoughts?Abdalla 01:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont forget that Iraq is the upper part of The Arabian peninsula

Interview with Hala Al-Saraf on Iraq's Public Health Sector

Recently, the Education for Peace in Iraq Center has conducted a ground truth interview with Hala Al-Saraf concerning the pending need for revitalization in Iraq's health sector. Hala Al-Sraf received her bachelors degree from IRaq's Mustansiriya University and from there went to work in various UN organizations in Baghdad. Recently Hala Al-Saraf was accepted as a fulbright scholar and studied at Columbia university as well as developed many information sharing programs, including project THINK which connects Iraqi and American medical students to benefit from eachother's knowledge and promote commmunication. But, Hala Al-Saraf cannot complete the task of fixing Iraqi's health sector issues alone. She admits the need for the development of the base of the medical sector, especially in terms of providing training for new medical professionals, due to the hundreds of doctors and medical professionals who have either been murdered, been kidnapped or fled for their lives from Iraq leaving the country with one of the least developed public health systems in the world.

Click here and read this intriguing interview with Hala Al-Saraf to find out more.

I dont think there is a need for the gallery at the end of the article, it seems insignificant and if any pictures are really important they should be incorprated within the rest of the article. Abdalla 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An imprtant read about Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon: Future Mid-East War?

This article if correct, which it seems in it's deep analysis has significant implications for Iraq.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5791

POV

A recently added paragraph at the end of the introduction is slightly point of view. The source of Iraq's political problems is ethnic differences and not the coalition forces. I doubt that the coalition is responsible for the shia/sunni conflict, or that it would easily go away when the forces withdraw. The definition in the "developing nation" article does not fit Iraq; Iraq is missing data to give it a classification. Also, the mention of the use of Iraq's massive oil reserves is suspiciously juxtaposed to coalition forces. Iraq has traditionally been a significant source of the world's oil production regardless of the invasion.

Such phrases as "Iraq currently faces several problems/challenges" are vastly different from "Invading forces have led to several problems/challenges for Iraq." Answering the question "why" more frequently has a POV tone than answering the question "what". As of June 2007, Iraq has the greatest political significance in America[1] Future additions should test for neutrality in the light that this is the most contentious issue for America at the moment. Legis Nuntius 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The source of Iraq's political problems is ethnic differences..." This is rather disingenuous. It's clear that whatever differences already existed have been greatly exacerbated by the invasion and occupation. Even many people who initially supported the war acknowledge this. MFlet1 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governorates

In the sub-article title "governorates", there is problem with the numbering beside the faultless map. Babil, Karbala, An Najaf, Al Anbar, Ninawa, Dahuk, Arbil, At Ta'mim (Kirkuk), As Sulaymaniyah...are numbered 1 to 9 when really they should be numbered 10 to 18, I tired changing this and was unsuccessful, any body who can please do so. Thanks, Abdalla A 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the official names?

There's no Arabic transliteration, nor is there Arabic-text Kurdish, nor do they even agree with the English phrasing or the article (the Arabic and Kurdish give Republic of Iraq, the article and English give Federal Republic of Iraq). Who's right, who's wrong, and what the heck are we going to do about it? Lockesdonkey 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error and substitution of opinion for fact concerning reconstruction of infratructure

The introduction to the article makes the following claim:

"Beginning with the invasion in 2003, a Multinational coalition of forces, mainly American and British, has occupied Iraq. The invasion has led to increased civil violence, political breakdown, the removal and execution of former president Saddam Hussein, and national problems in the development of political balance, economy, infrastructure, and use of the country's massive reserves of oil."

The inference about problems in infrastructure is factually inaccurate. There is ample documentation available online, at sites such as http://www.enr.construction.com/, site of Engineering News-Record, the world's leading construction and engineering professional journal, and the U. S. Department of Defense news site at http://www.defendamerica.mil/, of the extent of reconstruction and new construction in Iraq, especially in remedying deterioration and neglect dating to the Saddam regime.

The article fails to mention that Iraq is currently under US ocuppation and that Iraq's government is our country's puppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.175.148 (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the freedoms the Iraqis now have, and have won for themselves, and their liberation from an undeniably tyrannical regime (facts not mentioned in this introduction), the claim that "these issues have led to major setbacks for Iraq" is obviously opinion masquerading as fact. Writeroflight 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is heading into a political battleground. As for the Department of Defense newsite, to what kind of opinion do you think it might be disposed? Yes, that which is put out in official press releases. Defence PR is not the same as objective journalism. I agree, there is much construction and reconstruction, but after the country being bombed and invaded, the infrastructure has been crippled; its problems have been well documented. You can read into the situation from either side: what is being done or what has happened. The former is for those who prefer optimism. As for your last point, a tyrannical dictator was deposed, to the benefit of all, but a mess was created, to the detriment of all but terrorists and militants. "A tyrannical regime was liberated" would be a very skewed statement to put into the article. It's closer to bombastic rhetoric than academic prose. RedRabbit 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jomhuri-ye Iraq"

Hello, The name of the country is given as "Jomhuri-ye Iraq". This is incorrect as "ye" is a Persian grammatical feature, and Arabic is the Official Language of Iraq. It should be something along the lines of al-jamhuriyat ul-'Iraq. Thanks! 68.163.146.156 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Why did Iraq originally fail as a GA? And is anyone interested in bring back up to a GA? What needs to be done? RedRabbit 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars

Can we put this headline before the Invasion headline. thanks

U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Saeed Hasan reported earlier that Baghdad would delay the changeover until after Nov. 6, rather than put it into effect on November 1, as originally announced. Iraq has called the dollar the currency of an "enemy state."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjihad (talk • contribs) 06:20, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

No WMD's were found

The article clearly, and rightfully, discusses in a paragraph that the reason for invasion primarily was the alleged development and possession of WMD's by Iraq. However, the article continues with a 'Post-Invasion' paragraph which completely fails to mention that these WMD's were never found and that the American government acknowledges this.

You can not write a paragraph about the reasons for invasion, and then completely omit that these reasons proved to be wrong... Especially in this context and heated debate about Iraq, these facts that they have not been found (and I don't think anyone argues whether this is a fact or not) need to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.44.118 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When the article is updated to note that Iraq did not in fact fact have WMD in 2003, here is a reference (an interview with chief weapons inspector David Kay): http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1160609,00.html

In addition, since the article also referenced to Mr. Bush's comment, "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out inspectors," it is also worth noting that Iraq had allowed inspections to return on Nov. 27, 2002, but they were effectively kicked out when Mr. Bush gave his 48 hours notice that the war was about to begin. (Reference: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm)

PawnshopTrash 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)PawnshopTrash[reply]

incorrect population listed

the population of iraq listed is incorrect. it says the population is 26,783,3834 and cites the World Factbook.

the World Factbook actually says the number is 27,499,638

and actually given the potentially biased nature of the World Factbook on Iraq, the article should probably cite the United Nations number of 27,995,984 (2005 estimated) or the estimated 2007 number of 28,993,376 -- most international organizations favor the World Factbook number, but given the situation perhaps the UN number might be more appropriate

link to UN data: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_years_on_top.asp?srID=13684&Ct1ID=&crID=368&yrID=2001%2C2002%2C2003%2C2004%2C2005%2C2006%2C2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.195.21 (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the recent history sections

These are my immediate impressions on reading through the history section, specifically the more recent parts:

  • The Gulf War: it would be good to keep a totally new reader in mind, and explain what it actually was. All that would be necessary would be something like 'in response to the invasion of Kuwait, the United Nations authorised the use of force against Iraq. This caused the Gulf War, in which a US-led coalition defeated Iraq and forced it out of Kuwait.'
  • Only a few lines are given to Iraq between 1991 and 2003. This seems too little, and gives the impression that nothing happened in Iraq's history between the two wars being fought there. It would be good to see more coverage of the sanctions and no-fly zones; the Kurdish uprising of 1991; and how about a mention of Operation Desert Fox, the bombing of Iraq in 1998?
  • On the other hand, the next section, about the invasion of Iraq, devotes two rather length paragraphs to justifying the war. It seems to me that this material belongs more in the article Rationale for the Iraq War. I'm not sure it's even necessary to mention the specific UN resolutions; effectively, this whole section could be summarised as: 'President Bush initiated war against Iraq, arguing that this was justified by the UN resolutions against it; others disagreed.' The issue of the WMD is of course important, but it doesn't need to be explained in detail.
  • Post-invasion Iraq: this section says 'Al-Qaeda took advantage of the insurgency...' without explaining what 'the insurgency' is. Again, we should write as if for a totally new reader. I think this section needs at least a few lines mentioning the decline and collapse in Iraq's security since 2003; the rise of a violent insurgency against foreign and Iraqi troops, consisting of various different forces; and the sectarian war within Iraq itself. The basics are there already, but it could use a little rewriting for clarity.

I may return to make these changes myself, but for now they're just recommendations on this section. Terraxos 04:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq&oldid=166275256"