Mesopotamian Marshes is within the scope of Soil WikiProject, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
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.
This article is a geographical article as per its title and should avoid large sections about politics as they are covered in details in many articles. I'll try to deal w/ this asap. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well you posted that in May. When will this article actually have some information in it? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's nearly a full year since this was posted, and this article is still woefully devoid of content. What's going on? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
True, see the three main marsh articles, Hawizeh Marshes, Central Marshes and Hammar Marshes which have more historical information. This article should have more information but it has ended up in the "subordinate" marsh articles I listed above.--NortyNort (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is small but has four separate and larger articles for the sub-marshes, Hammar Marshes, Hammar Lake (same as Hammar Marshes), Hawizeh Marshes and Central Marshes. I don't see a reason to have these separate articles with such a small article for the overall Mesopotamian Marshes. All could easily fit in this article in a concise way.--NortyNort(Holla) 10:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, strongly. The three marshes are geographically and hydrologically distinct, and are commonly referred to as such. The "Mesopotamian marshes", by contrast, are a construct existing largely on Wikipedia (part of the reason that the article on them is so small). Incidentally, the Haur al-Hammar is part of the Hammar marshes, but is not "the same" as it. It is a large waterbody and therefore probably deserves its own article, but is no more "the same" as the Hammar Marshes as Lake Superior is "the same" as the Great Lakes. Svejk74 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to "paint all the marshes with the same brush". I agree that the three main marshes are different but they are located adjacent to each other in a geographic region and are often referred to as such. Having this small article and three separate, small and similar articles isn't necessary. If you look at the three different sub-marsh articles, they are redundant in more than one area. Their specifics on natural drainage, size, ecology and other variations can be noted in specific sections. The man-made drainage for each can be combined in one section. The Great Lakes doesn't have this problem because the articles for each lake are considerably larger. The term Mesopotamian Marshes (+/- capital "M" in marsh) has been used by much more than Wikipedia, to include Harvard, NASA, UN/Iraq Foundation along with a lot of other academic, media and general organizations. I can't think of another over-arching name aside from "Southern Iraq marshlands". If you have any ideas for improvement, please explain. As far as the Hammar Lake being part of the Hammar Marshes, good point but it would be good to have that mentioned in either article.--NortyNort(Holla) 12:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that the marshes are individually sufficiently large as features to warrant separate articles and, as mentioned, they are hydrologically distinct, being for the most part fed by different rivers (various combinations of the Tigris, Euphrates and Kharkeh Rivers). Much of the Hammar Marsh is a rather different type of habitat, being brackish. The history of their draining and ecological damage is also different, with the Central Marshes being drained from the 1950s onward, the Hammar marshes heavily impacted by oil exploration, and the Hawizeh marshes suffering particularly from effects of the Iran-Iraq war. Different tribes inhabited them. In a good twenty years of reading about the marshes and their inhabitants, I've gained the impression that the three areas of marshland are distinct enough to be treated separately.
You say that the Great Lakes should be treated differently because the individual articles are bigger. Well - surely the goal is ultimately to have bigger articles on each marsh as information is added (and I'd note that they're not particularly small articles by Wikipedia standards as it is). The marshes are ultimately as diverse (if not more so) than the Great Lakes are individually.
My own suggestion would be for the article on the "Mesopotamian" marshes, or whatever it's decided they should be called, to have a summary paragraph on each area with a link to the main article. Svejk74 (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My goal is the same, to have three large articles and a Mesopotamian marshes articles with summaries. Right now, it isn't that way which is why I suggested a merge. I think they could be expanded and they are very old, so there has to be a lot to put in the articles. I have worked on these articles and studied the marshes as well. I don't dispute what your saying, I am proposing a merge mainly for structure and presentation of the subject. I can help expand them and would appreciate your help. --NortyNort(Holla) 10:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)