Talk:Iraq/Archive 3

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

---

Take a look at the Iraq-Iran war article....I have never seen more biased article in my life... Like I already said Iraq- & Arabic related articles have lots of persian nationalistic influence on it which is quite unnecessary & unaccpeptable by the Iraqi pop.Iraswe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.158.33 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Safemariner, I'm just curious, do you consider Japan a pupet state of the U.S.? --Erikmartin 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

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

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)

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)

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)

"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...)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

==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)

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)

• 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)

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." Dabbler 09:52, 8 April 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)

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)

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).

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)

"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).

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

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)

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)

"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).

Adding External Link

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)

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

Gallery

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)

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

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)