Talk:Iraqi Interim Government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Iraq (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

I added facts (names of people, constitution, ceremony, etc.) and tried to tone down the editorial content so it's more NPOV. But maybe it should go altogether? Doops 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why the heck is the note addressed "Mr. President" and signed "Condi" ? That seems really weird. (This isn't germane to the Wikipedia, but I'm just curious.) Doops 05:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dubya is notorious for calling his subordinates by nicknames. Condi is the nickname he uses for her. RickK 05:25, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I don't mind the nickname. But why does she call him "Mr. President" ? Does that suggest that when she wrote the note it was intended for public consumption? (Surely a private note would have been addressed "George.") Doops 05:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Never. Any President is "Mr. President" to all but the closest of his friends or relatives. RickK 18:58, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
That's really outrageous. I always knew Bush was a jerk; but I didn't know it went all the way down to the little details of everyday life. (I kinda assumed that at least he was decent to his friends.) For him to address somebody who always calls him "Mr. President" as "Condi" is simply despicable. It's also totally not in keeping with his whole "I'm just a regular guy from Texas, not one of those eastern elitists" shtick. Until he invites her to call him "George" he should call her "Ms. Rice." It's called good manners. Doops 20:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's common among all Presidents. NO President expects, or would even accept, that subordinates call him by his first name. RickK 20:33, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
Really? I'm trying, inter alia, to imagine this in the Clinton administration, without success. But let's assume you're right (and that you've really got evidence on every president stretching back 200 years); I still think that if somebody's going to call you "Mr. President," it's only polite to call him/her "Mr. Smith" or "Ms. Jones" (or, indeed, in the case of a cabinet secretary, "Mr.-" or "Madam Secretary"); if by saying this I'm criticising any other presidents too, so be it. If Bush really does insist on the "Mr. President" thingummy, then his nickname use is no longer just quaint -- it's downright rude. I guess the administration have to put up with it; but I don't see why the members of the press don't protest at being infantilized. They should insist on being addressed respectfully. Doops 21:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Let Freedom Reign" Image[edit]

In this note, U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice gave confirmation of Iraqi sovereignty to U.S. President George W. Bush, who then wrote, “Let Freedom Reign!” during the opening session of the NATO Summit in Istanbul, Turkey, on Monday, June 28, 2004.

172 deleted the image. I thought this piece of propaganda was rather funny and ineffectual, in fact even exposed the Bush idea of freedom, in an article about an unelected, unaccountable authoritarian regime, who's first moves were the banning of al-Jazeera, the restoration of Saddam's secret police, re-installiation of Baathists to control the media, re-introduction of capital punishment, the authorisation of bombing civilian areas in Fallujah, crushing al-Sadr so that he can't join the political process, etc. - pir 13:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. From what I'd seen, here in the Untied States reports of this note were highly favorable and bordered on glowing. It probably made for good U.S. election year propaganda more than anything else. 172 13:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I certainly see your point, but I think it's one of those propaganda stunts they'll come to regret when Allawi destroys an exploding Iraq in order to save it. Just like the "Mission Accomplished" thing. IMO propaganda always falls apart here at Wikipedia when confronted with factual information. Anyway, since the image is on the talk page now, I'm not very bothered. - pir 13:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's a good point. If a caption is added under the photo, I'll favor reinserting it in the article. 172 13:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I really like this image, it's a great example of the Bush-men's Orwellian conception of freedom. I think in the future it will be as embarrassing as Rummy's handshake with Saddam - let's not flush it down the memoryhole. Difficult to find a good NPOV caption though. Maybe something like "Note from Condoleezza Rice to George W. Bush, who then wrote “Let Freedom Reign!”, at the occasion of the handover of power to the interim government. The note featured prominently in the US media. Some commentators find that the new government's rule contradicts the reign of freedom." pir 13:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How's this? Do you want to go ahead and reinsert it in the article? 172 14:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A note from Condoleezza Rice to George W. Bush, who then wrote "Let Freedom Reign!" at the occasion of the handover of power to the interim government. The note featured prominently in the U.S. media. Some commentators find that the new government's rule contradicts the reign of freedom.
Done. I think it's an excellent (and, in the end, NPOV) illustration of the article, connecting several important issues (legitimacy, the US view, the conflict of this view with reality, decision-makers in the background).pir 14:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree, though it looked out of place until the caption. Good job! 172 14:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name Change[edit]

I propose we move this article to Iraqi Interim Government, as that's the official name. Do you folks agree?--Pharos 02:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==

re: "It is recognized by the U.S., the United Nations, the Arab League and several other countries " 1) "other countries" -- this is confusing, as 2 of the 3 preceding noun phrases don't look like countries. 2) Shouldn't the countries be named? "Several" sounds like only a handful of nations actually recognize the legitimacy of the government, so shouldn't they be named? I mean, if the point is that this is very different from most governments, which are recognized by so many countries that it is infeasible to list them, then shouldn't it actually say what the few (or, "several") countries are?

Well, "the Arab League" means the members of the Arab League who voted in a League resolution to recognize it, "the United Nations" means the institution and specifically the members of the UN Security Council who also voted to recognize it. Basically, I think there are more than "several" nations that have recognized it; probably most nations have, though I would think there are probably at least a few who don't. I imagine some nations may also have adopted an ambiguous position, I couldn't really give a complete list. If you weant to change it to "a number of other countries", that's fine.--Pharos 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually say that I didn't know what those noun phrases are, I said that they are not countries, so "other countries" isn't appropriate. That is, unless you mean "members of the United Nations and members of the Arab League" recognize it, in which case you should say so ("members of the UN" is different from "UN", as the first refers to countries, and the second does not). If all the members of the UN recognize it, I recommend leaving out members of the Arab League (seriously, how many countries are not in the UN but in the Arab League?), and in fact, just saying "recognized worldwide".