Talk:Constitution of Iraq

Iraq High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untilted

Full text of the document should be relegated to wikisource (assuming a copyfree or copyleft translation can be obtained; this article should summarize the contents and related controversies. -- Beland 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has been added is a partial summary of the AP translation (except for the preamble, which is in full), and is of course copyrighted. Hopefully some Arabic-speaking Wikipedians might make a free translation from the original.--Pharos 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am trying to start the summaries much as you would summarize the U.S. Constitution. The entire Preable is informative, however. The AP translation is copyrighted but taking only one portion of the translation can be considered fair use with proper attribution. (Any Arabic-speakers out there want to start from scratch?)

I'm meaning to get to the "related controversies" as well. Sunnis have objected on several grounds and we should start a section to point out the related articles:

Federalism
Equal rights for women (Through implication in some articles. The only direct articles support equality as a concept.)
Islam as a religious foundation for law and government

Does anyone have links to news article listing their objections? - Tεx τ urε 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

proposed afghani constitution

when Afghanistan went through this process nearly two years ago, I put together the 2003 Loya jirga article. Maybe reading it can give you all further ideas on forming and shaping this article. Kingturtle 05:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemeral title

Seems like this is not a good title in WP guidelines, as it is bound to become outdated or inaccurate. 69.86.80.141 18:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly will, but this is the best place for it until the referendum takes place. Then we'll see what happens: 2005 Iraqi constitution or Rejected Iraqi constitution, 2005. –Hajor 19:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

This article is pretty useless unless it at least addresses the political factors shaping the proposed constitution. Here's an article that spells out some issues: http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html - while the article is extremely POV, it is well researched and the points it raises should be addressed. 63.201.230.130 22:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me?

Part of this needs to be moved to Wikisource. – Zntrip 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion, Liberation, Occupation

I would argue that all these terms are "loaded" and "value-laden" and that they all also, at the same time, represent facts. My proposals for "invasion, liberation, and occupation" or "liberation and occupation" instead of the phrases "invasion and occupation" or simply "liberation" in the intro sentence, was based on this perspective - aiming for a more balanced intro paragraph. And btw, I was actually the one who added "occupation" to the phrasing as well. Bwithh 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For Chrissakes, occupation is a word with a defined legal meaning. Military occupation is governed under the laws of war as establshied by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. See Military occupation. Saying "occupation" is NPOV is like saying "murder" is NPOV. When the US and its allies controlled Iraq, it was an occupation. The US and its allies even referred to it as an occupation. After the hand-off to Allawi's government, Iraq was legally sovereign. Once could argue that the US and its allies still effectively control and occupy the country, but that would be using occupation in a POV way. But to use it to define the legal reality in Iraq -- a reality explicitly established by the occupying forces -- between April 2003 and June 2004 is not POV. It is factual. --Jfruh 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "chrissakes", but to appeal to the Geneva Convention is pretty silly, isn't it, as the US specifically disavows following it? I mean, surely you've heard? Not only did Paul Bremer try to plunder the country and destroy the economy, until he got into trouble and had to be shipped out quietly at night, but then there were world famous reports of the US torturing civilians in using Saddam Hussein's torture facilities, and famous reports and video of the US deliberately gassing and burning civilians when the US destroyed Fallujah -- plus the reports of the US destroying hospitals and shooting ambulance drivers, to prevent doctors reporting casualty counts? The US is in the middle of heated internal political debate over its current administration's policy of torture, and some internal US dissent against torture.

Lets just Xerox a copy of ours. Why the fuss?

Freedom is Dependent upon Economic Liberty

I hope that the proposed Iraqi Constitution contains some real provisions for the guarantee of private property ownership by individuals and families. Otherwise, the Constitution will just be "words on a page", without any real mechanisms to guarantee the freedoms that the people have fought for for so long. (Nov.)

Rephrase

I think this statement is somewhat misleading.

In the end, only three of the 15 Sunni members of the drafting committee attended the signing ceremony, and none of them signed it. Sunni leaders were generally urging the electorate to reject the constitution in the 15 October referendum, but were overwhelmingly rejected by the voters.

Someone reading over the sentence quickly might surmise the referendum was rejected overwhelmingly. I suggest this instead.

In the end, only three of the 15 Sunni members of the drafting committee attended the signing ceremony, and none of them signed it. Sunni leaders were generally urging the electorate to reject the constitution in the 15 October referendum, but the referendum was overwhelmingly accepted.

Or am I just picking a nit?

Official Arabic/Unofficial English Constitution of Iraq, 144 articles

These two documents will be posted on Wikisource, and subsequently the links for the Wikipedia page edited. I will make sure that the sources are attributed, though the source of the English translation is elusive for the moment. I had thought that the best copies of these needed to be available ASAP, and if the source for the translation is not found in seven days it will be removed. The unofficial English has been supposedly agreed upon by the UN, US, UK, and NDI (National Democratic Institute).

Any sources of attribution for this translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azadkariem (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 June 2006

Transwiki

It seems that much of this should be wikified and transwikied over to Wikisource. --Emesee 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allah/God Translation

Is there a standard in Wiki for translating "Allah" instead of "God" when it is in Arabic? Both mean the same thing, but it seems like a 'bias' to me 74.78.110.92 (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

The entire text of the 1968 constitution, and not a single link to the source, plus the text seems to be unavailable anywhere but here. What the hell, over? 147.9.177.126 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Constitution?

Hello, I remember reading a CIA pdf file about the Saddamist Ba'ath Constitution, where it is? 190.141.83.19 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]