Talk:Iraq/Archive 4

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?

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for expressing nationalist propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.23.19 (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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).

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 2OO7 (UTC)

Perhaps the first known literacy/recorder histroy is meant??? Arnoutf 21:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

I hope this is helpful. The ancient Sumerians created the world's first writing system known as cuneiform. The term cuneiform means "wedge-shaped." Sumerian writing is wedge-shaped because of the the type of instrument that was used to create it. [1] also, some other sites. [2], [3], [4].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.158.33 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kurdish nation

Kurds: Indoeuropean migration: Around 7000 years ago the first migration waves( maybe because of population overcrowd) of the biggest language family of the world called indoeuropean language family started.The members of this big family first live together in a region in caucasus(west of caspian sea and today's Georgia and Armenia) or maybe in Anatolia near Van lake(today's turkey). Different branches of this big family were Germanic,Celtic, Baltic Slavic, Albanian, Latin, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and indoaryans. Among these branches there was a big branch named Iranian family. Iranian family had three major subgroups : Medes(today's Kurdish), Persian(today's Farsi,Tajik and Dari) and Parthian(extincted). Iranian people who called themselves as aryans( and iran means the land of aryans) first started their settlement in zagros mountains(west of today's iran)to anatolia (east of today's Van lake in turkey) in around 7000 years ago. They were Medes( ancectors of today's Kurds) first iranians who came to iran. Persians and Parthians came to iran hundreds of years later. The Medes formed the first big civilization of aryans (or maybe all indoeuropeans) in their lands. They preserved their brilliant culture and language against all foreign invasions during thausands of years. The first iranian big empire was founded by these people around 3000 years ago although they had many smaller kingdoms before that.Medes people( Kurds) have had important roles in development and vanishment of different big empires and kingdomes of the region until around 1000 years ago when islam came to their region. Many scolars believe that Zoroaster, the great iranian prophet was median. You can find in ancient greek and asyrian documents that they frequently mentioned directly to Median or Kurdish people as a people with a great civilization. Today their land is divided into more than four countries including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. but all of the kurds in those countries still have the same language and culture. Except for Azerbaijan and Armenia and recently Iraq all other three countries are not democratic countries and kurds think they are under oppression in those countries and are fighting against those governments militarily or politicaly for their natural rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyer (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is a democratic country. There are nearly 90(%~15 of total) Kurdish-orgined parlamenters in Parlament of Turkey. Most of them are in AKP which is leading and directing the government.

Bias

This article is extremly bias and will have a negative effect on those who view Wikipedia as factual. One key bias point is that Iraq is notItalic text' a colony of the United States of America. If one searches it on the internet, only lectuers and protests can be found. For some reason this article is relatively hard to edit, but must be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryogibojangles (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Anyone who uses Wikipedia seriously understands the possibility of Vandalism, which is why one must check the history of edits if there is a questionable statement. Furthermore, collegiate sources do not generally accept Wikipedia as a source for this very reason. Vandalism does not make the article biased.

I have to say that i see other areas of bias as well. It's not seriouse and probably shouldn't be tooken into account, but its worth mentioning.

"Allahu Akbar" vandalism

A user/vandal has changed the transliteration of the flag's moto from "Allahu Akbar" to 'Death to america' I have changed it back [[User:Cs1kh]] 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BIAS

Iraq is a very beautiful place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.138.96 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC) There is a clear example and proof of bias in this article. Ignoring all the positive developments in Iraq, this communal blog simply states that "Although violence has declined from the summer of 2007,[40] the U.N. reported of a cholera outbreak in Iraq."

(You guys forgot to include a sentence about how the cholera outbreak is Bush's doing now that he's got more time on his hands.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.154.217 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Issues

TOTALLY POV

500,000 children died as a result of the sanctions against Iraq?!? Common sense itself screams out against such an assertion. Although reference 15 does point to an article on a website, that article in no way backs up this claim. I am removing this outlandish claim unless a stronger reference can be found. --Murphoid (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see this crazy claim is back in the article, even though in both the references it is clearly a projection not a solid fact. --Murphoid (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

the article says it is an estimate. --neon white talk 15:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

gulf war article is totally biased POV. please put citations and references? or else I'll try my best to revert it. JoTp (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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[5] 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)

"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)

That doesn't necessarily follow. The inter-ethnic strife under Saddam resulted in a million dead, or at least hundreds of thousands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

---

new comment---

"I doubt that the coalition is responsible for the shia/sunni conflict, or that it would easily go away when the forces withdraw"

This is in itself POV. That you doubt something doesn't mean jack. Your suggestions can be summed up as follows: You want the article re-written in your POV.

I agree that blaming problems on the invasion that were there before, although oppressed, doesn't make sense. It does seem anti US/Invasion pov. I say go ahead and make those eidts you mentioned Legis.75.67.137.34 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Occupation

The occupation ended in 2005 when power was handed over to the Iraqis. Iraq is currently not occupied; the foreign forces are there with permission from Iraq. The lead section needs to be changed. 163.1.215.53 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that was correct in October, but obviously now that Iraq's government has signed a treaty superceeding the UN mandate for the US troops Iraq is no longer occupied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The occupation of Iraq did end years ago, this article is grossly misleading and biased. Ofcourse we are meant to assume good faith, but after reading this article i find it impossible to do so. This article needs MAJOR changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual accuracy

I have added the tag to this article as there appears to be more than one problem with it. My main concern is the grossly inaccurate claim in the opening paragraph saying that Iraq has been occupied by the United States since 2003. This is not the case, the occupation ended years ago and there are plenty of sources including the United Nations resolutions showing this to be the case. My concern is if the opening paragraph can be so misleading then there might be some other big problems as well. The dispute tag should remmain until this issue is fixed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful news! Our soldiers can come home now, then, and the war with Iraq is over? I'm sure President Obama will be thrilled to know that -- one less thing on his full plate! Get a clue. Geez... --JT (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the idiot JT. The sovereign government of Iraq has voted time and time again to allow the U.S. forces there until they want them out. Have you read the news at all this year or do you edit wikipedia solely from your own imagination? An occupied country is never asked what it wants...the Iraqi people voted for the politicians who signed the agreements that allow U.S. soldiers to be there until 2011. It's guys like this who ruin wikipedia and make it leftypedia....THANKS BRITISHWATCHER KEEP IT UP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.154.217 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the Legal Status of "Occupation"

I've consolidated the arguments on this page here so we can address the technical question of "occupation." The issue is fairly well addressed in Iraqi sovereignty. I'll address it legally here. First, the definition from Hague Convention, 1907, Articles 42, 43:

"Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[1] The first two articles of that section state:

Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Art. 43.

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Then, Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, Section III, Article 6:

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.

In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

That is, the "occupation" of Iraq could only last one year after the end of military operations against the previous government. UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1546 of June 8th, 2004 required the occupational government, the Coalition Provisional Authority, to transfer sovereignty. The CPA was dissolved June 28th, 2004, when sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government, thus formally ending the occupation. This sovereignty was recognized by the US, the UN, the Arab League, and many other countries. Bagsc (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for clearly explaining it here Bagsc and for making the required changes to article, ill remove the tag i added as that was my main concern with this article. Thanks again BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

""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."" I disagree with that RedRabbit. I think it is a fact that "A tyrannical regime was dissolved" or some derivative of it. Liberated works, imho. 75.67.137.34 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Many iraqi people are liberated from all the primitive things like breathing or eating. They must be resting happy in peace, because their tyrannical regime was dissolved. By the way, is there any source, how many iraqi people called for help, to dissolve their tyrannical regime? What are you talking about? Iraq was probably not a good place to live, now it is definitely worse than hell. "Liberation"! Dont joke about drama of millions of people. --81.210.156.129 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

I can't see what this has to do with anything now or historically, as it happened in 2000, when Saddam Hussein was controlling the country.

Do we know if this is still the case? Because either way, presenting this in any manner outside of it's historical significance (of which there is little if any) would be biased. 70.236.28.167 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be more relevant in the Iran Oil Bousse article, that nation recently has switched to the Euro and the Yen as their primary currencies for oil. Japan is one of Irans biggest single traders.--mitrebox (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New Flag? (22 Jan 2007)

According to alarabia.net, a temporary flag is approved for a year by the parliament on 22 January 2007. Experienced users kindly update the flag section 82.194.62.230 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Find an English page and we'll talk, as far as I know it says SAMPLE on that flag.--mitrebox (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The new flag is official flag of Iraq, and I think they also changed the Coat of Arms of Iraq to reflect the change in the flag. --D.Kurdistani (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Coat of Arms —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Kurdistani (talk • contribs) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt update :) 82.194.62.230 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

TEMPORARY & SAMPLE, that's mean they didn't take final decision about it, and in the other side most of the Iraqi people didn't agree about this change, so you shouldn't change it that early, Iraqis now don't feel good about this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Yousif (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq is still under occupation and the new flag is hotly contested. We should keep the old one until issues in the real world are resolved. Please don't be arrogant with issues you don't know about. It's not black and white. Leave the old flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.192.123 (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Halabja

Why dont you put images of tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.57.9 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib was a very notorious prison. I heard the Iraqis built a torture museum there. (And no it doesn't have a picture of Lindy England with a prisoner on a leash.) But what does that have to do with Halabja? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.148.2 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Iraq formerly known as Mesopotamia

the last time when I read this article, I saw soemthing like Iraq formerly known as Mesopotamia.. now this text has been removed. Is there a reason behind this?. Iraq's former name in Greek was Mesopotamia, why has this been removed ?? Here's link for it: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.125.210 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous statement. It is a fact that whenever Mesopotamia is mentioned, it is rarely linked to Iraq whatsoever. Thus, the majority of the people in the world do not know Mesopotamia was located in what is known as Iraq today. Although locally and thoughout the middle east, the name Mesopotamia( the land between the two rivers)is still very much in use when referring to Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinygalaxy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate misquoting of source

"Roughly 40% of Iraq's middle class is believed to have fled, the U.N. said. Most are fleeing systematic persecution and have no desire to return" This is ridiculous. The paragraph attempts to portray the diaspora as a result of Saddam Hussein's rule. But the numbers given are clearly for those that fled after the U.S. invasion - read the sources. The article cited for this claim said NOTHING about "systematic prosecution". It made clear that the diaspora was a result of the Iraq war, which the article completely ignored. Naurmacil (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stand-alone article on Iraq under Saddam?

Would everyone be open to creating an article on the previous "Iraq" as it was before the 2003 Invasion? Something along the lines of the USSR article, Austro-Hungary or Yugoslavia I'm very curious about how Saddam's government was set up and if there's any data on GDP and whatnot from back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.182.185 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. Iraq was a completely different place before Saddam took presidency. I would be up for it 71.197.212.92 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the USSR is different then the Russian federation, that was a country dissolving and smaller states taking over from it, iraq was a forced regime change--Jakezing (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Subsection on Politics

Currently, the last statement reads, "In 2008, the U.S. pressured Iraq to enter an alliance with imposing conditions. If Iraq enters this alliance, the U.S. plans to establish 50 military bases in Iraq that will be stationed with U.S. troops. U.S. personnel will also enjoy full legal immunity and the U.S. will not be required to notify the Iraqi government when or how many of its troops enter or leave the country." Instead of quoting speculation and currently in negotiation sections of the treaty/alliance, wouldn't it be better to just state that a new treaty/alliance is under discussion, in order to maintain the neutrality of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1453 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Summarized the finalized agreement without POV issues in the above mentioned quote. Bagsc (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

US Interest in Persian Gulf

I found the following statement in the article: "The United States, which had enormous vested interests in the oil supplies of the Western Asia,[citation needed] led an international coalition into Kuwait and Iraq." I'm a little bewildered why someone would question why the US has an interest in the Persian Gulf oil supplies, considering the US is the worlds largest importer of oil and the Persian Gulf countries are the worlds largest exporters of oil. Oil is a strategic commodity comprising trillions of dollars of international trade per year. If anyone has a more detailed question of why this is important, please ask so I can clarify. Until then, I'm removing the tag. Bagsc (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

This article is in no way suitable to be considered a "good article" right now. Here, for starters are just some things that need citations or need to be changed completely:

In the third paragraph, this article states that after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq has experienced

"significant economic growth, building of new infrastructure, and use of the country's huge reserves of oil."

This is wildly misleading and inaccurate. I do not have statistics on economic growth but I think this could be easily discredited. "...building of new infrastructure" is wildly misleading and doesn't indicate that their is MUCH LESS working infrastructure post-invasion. "...use of the country's huge reserves of oil" does not indicate that most of the oil and oil profits has been redirected and stolen and the money is not aiding the Iraqi people nor funding the rebuilding of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquascepter (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From an economic perspective, and as a person who lived in Iraq, I can tell you reconstruction does increase economic activity. Of course, the question being begged is how much was economic activity reduced immediately before (during the war)? Infrastructure building increases when infrastructure has been destroyed, but that doesn't mean the infrastructure is up to the same level. There is no basis to the claim that "most" oil or oil revenue has been "stolen." The UN gave the CPA authority over the DFI, with oversight from IAMB and SIGIR, which proved shoddy accounting, and the IIG took over in 2004, then replaced by the ITG in 2005, and is now run by the GOI. Certainly, a large amount of corruption and misaccounting has occurred, perhaps $30 billion over 5 years, but the Iraqi government has been decent at accounting for the oil and revenue, and has been choosing not to spend the money on development projects in order to avoid having the money being lost to corruption at the provincial, local, and contractor levels of the projects. The government's belief is that accounting and law enforcement isn't sufficient yet to spend all the money. Additionally, the government foresaw that oil prices wouldn't be sustained at such high levels, and was budgeting for future years construction. Some other reading on the Iraq oil revenues accounting, government spending, and Infrastructure spending: http://www.cfr.org/publication/17636/ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081031.pdf http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/10/30/Iraq_to_take_over_oil_revenue_oversight_despite_critique/UPI-43991225406346/ http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11381&Cr=iraq&Cr1=Bagsc

Why is the no-citations thing at the bottom

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.10.146 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Issues

British Mandate of Mesopotamia

"They established the Hashemite king, Faisal, who had been forced out of Syria by the French, as their client ruler. Likewise, British authorities selected Sunni Arab elites from the region for appointments to government and ministry offices.[specify][16]"

I don't dispute that this is a relevant fact if verifiable, but elaborating seems challenging without a trip to the library. Anyone have an opinion on whether to elaborate or omit? Bagsc (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reconstruction

I like the paragraphs added on reconstruction, but i was wondering if it would be possible to add just a sentence to it somewhere explaining that lack of investment prior to the invasion also led to the need for major reconstruction and investment. At the moment it sounds like all the damage was done because of war which ignores past history of sanctions and corrupt government leading to the suffering of the Iraqi people and failing services.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and do so. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and al-Qaeda in Iraq articles need to me merged

Preferrabky in the writing style of al-Qaeda in Iraq (Tawhid is more of a list than an article). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Effort, Addition of Recent History Content to Address Conflicts

I've been trying to flesh out some ambiguous legal areas that have been at the root of some disputes in the Modern History, and I know I've gone overboard. My intent was to link out to more of the HUGE number of Iraq 'history' type articles. I am also worried that in addressing the contention and complaints which revolve around the United States-Iraq relations, it's getting too focused on the US/UN perspective, and neglects the Iraqi perspective. Some of this should be moved to the History of Iraq article and other supporting articles. However, before I start doing that, I want to see what other people's opinions are on what should and should not be in the summary.

Once we've addressed the most common and contentious issues with the article, I can go through with sourcing all the contentious statements, and a rewrite purely for style. The end goal is to finally get this article nominated for Good Article, preferably in January. All feedback is encouraged and welcomed. Bagsc (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its right to move some of the information to the correct separate articles and have a more balanced article on Iraq here rather than a huge focus on recent history with the US. Ill read the article through fully a few times in the next couple of days and let you know what i think and if i have any suggestions. I suspect its going to be difficult to get a nomination supported for this article, but atleast trying to do so will provide a lot of ideas / suggestions on what things need improving. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Bush & Chaney's lies regarding WMD

Please use http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf (Bush) and http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf (Chaney) as citations demonstrating their lies. Thanks! --JT (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Rewrite

Why is it, that the lead, which is supposed to cover a comprehensive summary on the article as an entirety, devotes 50%, or 2/4 paragraphs to the current Iraq war? Perhaps a sentence or two on a complete history of the region and the Republic! The war is not so important as to warrant two paragraphs in the lead! --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Desperate improvements needed

In the "Modern History" section of this article there is FAR to much information about the Iraqi war (who has ever seen a section 3.3.1 on Wikipedia) There needs to be more information on the other parts of the "Modern History" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Much Iraq War material should be moved to other articles. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Provincial Map Correction

The Wikipedia map of provincial boundaries is incorrect.

Iraq underwent substantial provincial boundary changes in the period 1960's through 1990's. Specific changes included substantial new boundaries of Tamim/Kirkuk, Erbil, Ninewa/Mosul, Diyala, and Salah ad Din/Baghdad.

Baghdad Province boundary is incorrect in that it incorrectly shows Baghdad City Limits as Baghdad Province. The City (Amanat) is a part of the Province, but the Province is larger.

Initially, Baghdad Province included the current districts of Ad Dujayl, Balad, Sammara, Ad Dawr, Tikrit, and Bayji. Salah ad Din's northernmost district, Al Shirqat, was part of Mosul Province (now Ninewa). Salah ad Din's current Tuz Khormatu District was part of Kirkuk District.

Mosul District was changed to Ninewa, excluding the districts associated with Dohuk, which was established as an independent province, and Al Shirqat which was transferred to the newly-formed Salah ad Din Province. Makhmour District was transferred from Erbil to Ninewa.

Kirkuk was altered to become Tamim Province with the exclusion of certain districts assigned Diyala, Salah ad Din and Sulimaniya. Two districts were transferred to it from Erbil Province.

These changes are the subject of boundary disputes currently at issue.

I have the accurate maps and can provide them in a Wikipedia-copyright format.

What is the procedure for map change?

MDMapmaker

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MDMapmaker (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

American English pronunciation

American English pronunciation can also be /aɪræk/ in colloquial speech, however /ɪrɑːk/ (coming from British) is nowadays more common and formal in American. By the way, the same happens to Iran. Sources: wiktionary:Iraq, wiktionary:talk:Iran, wiktionary:Iran. And a question: should the aricle not contain the archaic spelling of Iraq, Irak? wiktionary:Irak. Sincererly, Ferike333 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As there is no reply, I'll write these things in the article. Ferike333 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

Yes, Mussav (talk · contribs), the name Iraq is ultimately from Sumerian. The article still says so. Please read it. The Arabic name, possibly via Persian, dates to the 6th century. The rest of the etymology section you keep reverting to is absolute crap, partly positively in opposition to its own sources, partly unmotivated WP:SYNTH, partly cobbled together from random googling (got to love the "reference" attributed to "Johanna").

I have made an effort to put the material we have straight. Now please stop playing silly games. If there is anything you want to add, let's see the reference. --dab (𒁳) 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Middle Persian eraq"

It is clear that the "escarpment" explanation is a folk etymology within Arabic, based on the root `rq retroactively associated with the toponym. But I am having difficulties tracing the Middle Persian word. Obviously, the loan could not go from Akkadian to Arabic directly, and necessarily was taken from Persian. So it would have been in Middle Persian that the name of the city ("Erech" > "Eraq" or so) became the name of "the lowlands of Eraq", i.e. lower Mesopotamia, and Arabic loaned the term in the wider meaning of "lower Mesopotamia". This is plausible, but we are lacking sources on this step. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be grateful to Mussav (talk · contribs) if he could discontinue his disruption of attempts to clear up an already difficult part of the article. If there is any coherent point he would like to make, let him use the talkpage. Until he does, I will treat this as rollbackable. --dab (𒁳) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want us to add something based on prediction? If you don't have a source syas that Iraq actually is a Persian name then don't add false info. I will revert back to the original version until you get the source. Really I'm curious what does Iraq means in Persian?

Btw, I'm not the one who made the original research I just preferred the other version because it has sources (even if it’s original research) but it’s way better than personal predictions. Mussav (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are joking, right? The source has been there all the time,

"The name al-`Irāq, for all its Arabic appearance, is derived from Middle Persian erāq lowlands". W. Eilers (1983), "Iran and Mesopotamia" in E. Yarshater, The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

I am simply trying to present it within a coherent context. If you cannot understand what the section is about, why do you insist on fighting over it?

The problem we have is not "is Arabic Iraq loaned from Persian" (it is), but "what is the connection of Akkadian Uruk and Perian eraq. We don't have a source on that, and we aren't making any "private predictions" on it, this is simply something we need to figure out. Now if you wouldn't waste my time with your clueless antagonism, I might actually get a chance of doing just that. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bro, Iraq's name is disputed and you removed that pharse. and yes one of the suggestion says that Iraq name is from Middle Persian but that's only one suggestion, there are other suggestions.

I just want to know why do you think that Iraq name could not go from Akkadian to Arabic directly and was taken from Persian? I don't get it? The Akkadian Empire conquered some parts of Arabia, so Arab were in touch with Mesopotamia before the Arrival of Cyrus. Also In Matter of facts Babylon Empire built by people who came from Arabia. read more about Amorite. also read about Ubaid period all these dynasties were in touch with Arab before the arrival of Persia to Mesopotamia.

Vandalism

Somebody needs to protect this article for editing due to vandalism. At the moment of writing, this is the first line of the article: Iraq sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.76.233.192 (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, "Contrary to what was written above, Iraq did not gain their independence from the U.S. on June 30 2009". This article is still suffering SineBot. Schnarr 03:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

possible error in GDP per capita

Hello

I noticed that both nominal and PPP GDP per capita are given at $4000, which is odd since nominal and PPP total GDP differ rather substantially, one being at $83 billion and the other one at $114 billion. The population is around 31 million (all 3 are given as 2009 estimates). Which if my math is correct means that the nominal per capita should be at around $2600 while the PPP one at around 3700. I didn't correct it myself because being no expert I'm not sure there's no catch somewhere, so I thought it more prudent to just signal it here. However, if there is a catch there should be an indication about it, which I wasn't able to find. So I guess it's probably just an error.

VSimio (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Population

The population figure for 2007 is out of date, especially since major resettlement of refugees and population growth over the last two years has occurred. World-gazetteer.com cites an estimate of about 34.83 million as of mid-December 2008, a 19% increase over the figure currently in the article. 5 million people "missing" results in a lot of problems (see below). Do we have any information on when a new census might occur? And in the meantime, what it the rule for reliable estimate sources? Bagsc 13:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (Note: I reorganized a few comments so they can be addressed comprehensively)

Iraqi Turkmens: Where are they?

According to Iraqi 1957 census, there were 600.000 Turkmens in Iraq at that time. 600.000 Turkmens means 10% of Iraqi population was Turkmen at that time. However in this article it says Turkmens+Assyrians+etc = 5%. So where are the missing millions of Turkmens? Let me say it, under the pressure of Kurds...Please edit the article. The real number of their population is 2-2.5 million and 10% of total Iraqi population. These are some references: http://www.unpo.org/member_profile.php?id=27 http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_155.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.247.26 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

UNPO is not reliable, but the answer is this: many Sunni Turkmens are counted as Sunni Arabs because they formed with them a bloc against the Kurdish nationalists. You can see so many Turkomanic names under Iraqi Sunni Arabs e.g. Pachachi. The other who were pro-Kurd are counted as Kurds. Shiite Turkmen however were not part of this business and are closer to other Shiites in the power struggle in Iraq. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is very suspicious. I suspect most editors are probably Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac or Kurds they call themselves with a grudge. There are loads of Turkomens everywhere in Iraq now as I've seen, even Basra. Someone better check the sources so that they haven't been counted as Sunni Arabs, Syriacs or Kurds. Pink Princess (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Demographics Statistics

The figures in this section have recently been arbitrarily altered by an editor with no references quoted either before or after. I have tagged all the changed numbers and added an "Accuracy" template to the section. I am assuming good faith on the part of the editor and that he can actually provide a source. If not, I believe the figures should be reverted to the original data. Comments? SpinningSpark 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree here - these are entirely arbitrary. Especially such a highly cited figure of 20% for the Kurdish Population. Everything I have seen and read has stated anywhere between 10-15%. Unless some citations can be brought in I suggest removing them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.73.112 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurds in Iraq

In Iraq lives more than 7 Million Kurds, so 25% of the Iraqi people are Kurds and not 15%- 20%.

Please, correct this

Prove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.207.113 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite sources at the bottom of the article!

Ex: In "demographics" section:

"Shi'a as much as 60%, Sunni about 40% (source: Britannica, Religion section of Iraq article). Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37% (source: CIA World Fact Book)." - 134.121.247.116 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

In the arabic article for Iraq, it's stated that Iraq is an Arab country, located in the middle east, against, the general view, which states that Iraq is a country located in the middle east.

Biased, I tried to change it, but seemed to face a ...Goliath! --41.200.140.163 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how this all had happened is like trying to figure out a puzzle when your missinng 15 pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.127.56 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq is an Arab country. Up to 80% of its population are Arabs. Go to Baghdad and see if its culture feels any different from say Damascus or Beirut. Do you think by writing in Wikipedia that its not Arab you are going to change the facts on the ground? You must be dreaming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.207.113 (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraq is an Arab country (Arab majority). There is an ever-growing trend of Arabs calling themselves Mesopotamians and tracing their roots to Babylon and Sumeria, but that is as bon fide and unproven as the case of Syriacs. Also, if Iraq is not in the middle-east, where is it? Africa? Sand-nigger is not the same as plain nigger. Pink Princess (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Syriac and Armenian

The article lacks name of Iraq in other locally official languages such as Syriac and Armenian, apart from Turkoman. Ellipi (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

higgigi[http://www.example.com link title--66.220.213.240 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Subscript text

{| class="wikitable" border="1"

|Bold text[[[Link title]]] |}]

Syriac languages are only spoken by Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans/'whatever they want to call themselves', a tiny minority in Iraq (<3%), and even not all of them speak the language. Therefore the number of speakers is way too insignificant past a mention in the Languages part of the Demographics section. It is almost writing the name of the USA on their article in Arabic. Not gonna happen pal. Pink Princess (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-2003 Invasion Civilian Casualties Bias?

Maybe its just me, but this sounds like it could be written better.

"Some studies have placed the number of civilians deaths as high as 655,000 (see The Lancet study), although most studies estimate a lower number; the Iraq Body Count project indicates a significantly lower number of civilian deaths than that of The Lancet Study"

If most studies estimate a lower number, then the lower number or a range at least NEEDS to be mentioned as the primary focus of the topic. The high number can be mentioned as an upper bound. Here it just sounds like the author wants to present the highest possible inflated numbers they can find and not even give ranges for any other numbers that they themselves admit most studies find. Mmurfin (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Empires

"Throughout its long history, Iraq has been the center of the Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sassanid and Abbasid empires, and part of the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Parthian, Roman, Rashidun, Umayyad, Mongol, Ottoman and British empires.[5]" What about the fact that Iraq as been the centre of the Sumerian (Sumer) and Lakhmid (Lakhmids) Empire? Could someone maybe include these?

I know a lot about empires so I am going to start to prepare some sections with some of the empires mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good. But how about Seljukid Empire ? Iraq was a part of their realm also. ( In disintegration years Iraq was the center of a Seljuks dynasty.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro here is a joke. Both too long, and filled with the typeof biase I'd expect from the current Iraqi administration. I corrected a few thing - namely adding that the results of the war are not all just positive and that Christians are not the only ones being persicuted. The intro section remain way too long and probably filled with inaccuracies and unsourced material that I haven't yet looked much into. Anyone interested in helping me clean it up? Pink Princess (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, only I would keep the first few Paragraphs of the intro, a little info about Iraq's geography (location) and history in the intro is great but the post invasion info should be moved to the post invasion's section. Mussav (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation/Transliteration/Pronunciation

The Motto

Is not it "God is One" ?

No (even 'God is greatest' is technically incorrect) It is "Allah is greatest" [[User:Cs1kh]] 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Alla just means God in Arabic. (The Arabic word "Allah" describes the same kind of God that Christian culture a.k.a. western civilization does except for a few things...namely that "Allah" is completely male whereas the Judeo-Christian God is not defined by sex except within his relationships to others, in other words the Christian "God" is not limited by being male or female..."Allah" is a dude)

'Rab' means god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.229.58 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When a person says 'god', a person from any religion (or no religion) can ask which god? By explicitly using the word 'Allah' it states the god of Islam. As above: 'Rab' means god. 'Allah' is a name, though only ever used by Muslims and for God. Allah is used explicitly for the God of Islam (though Islam believes it is the only god of all people)! so the logo will be changed to "Allah is one" accordingly (as "God is One" is an incorrect translation) [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arabic word Allah is translated as God with a capital G in English. As far as I know Allah was originally formed from a definite article and the word 'god'. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt that Jews use the word Allah to refer to God! But I would be impressed if they do! [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The arab jews do :DEmadd (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

i am a jew, from Israel ,not from the "arab-jew" brunch, when i use Allah (as we do some times when mixing arabic in hebraw) i mean "god", not god of Islam. its not unheard of to hear a Jew person using "Allah ho akbar" in Israel or "Ana aref?" when we don't have the answer to something, some other words are used too, like sababa and ya'ani..Ofirgeller22 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Abrahamic religions all refer to God as the same overbeing, regardless of choice of name or language. Allah is the same as the Christian One God, although the religions have stipulated other things central to their own beliefs (Gender of God, for example). Annihilatron (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus spoken Aramaic. In Aramaic, God is Allaha - suspiciously close to Allah, and that was spoken before Muhammed or Islam first came. Allah is God in Arabic, it is like arguing Portuguese Christians worship another God called Deus. Rab means Lord - an exchangable reference to God as with Christianity. Pink Princess (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"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)

"Jomhuri-ye Iraq" is a Kurdish name of the country, though not the official one; that's كۆماری عێراق (Komara Iraqê). Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It read as Komari Iraq --Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish transliteration?

Kurdish transliteration ?

As far as I know, عراق is an Arabic name. So why it's being transliterated using the transliteration rules of the Kurdish language?

For example, اربیل which is a Kurdish name, is transliterated to "Irbil"; And the same counts for the "Iraq"!!! it must be transliterated into "Eraq" as per Arabic rules for transliteration (Look at this)

Anyone interested in this issue?

I agree the Kurdish name for Iraq is Êraq not Iraq, it is pronounced Éraq as opposed to the arabic pronounciation 'Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.201.40 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maxee (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the offical transliteration of Iraq in the DIN 31635 (the basis for the most common scientific transliterations of Arabic) has no "E" and uses "I" instead. "ʿIrāq" is correct. Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not relevant for the Kurdish language, in Kurdish Iraq is called Êraq, the same with Iran, which is called Êran. So the official translitteration is not relevant for Kurdish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.102.5 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} In the "Etymology" section, please change "(3) is closer to the Arabic pronunciation than (2) is" to "(1) is closer to the Arabic pronunciation than 2 is". Pronunciation (3) is "eye-RACK", which is nothing at all like the Arabic, while pronunciation (1) is "i-RAHK", which is at least marginally closer. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that would really benefit from a reference. I would think some reliable source must have commented on the pronunciation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a typo, but I can't change it, since I don't have an account: "Despite being a large of military force, the Iraqi army was no match for the advanced weaponry of the coalition forces and the air superiority that the U.S. Air Force provided." shouldn't include the word "of". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.118.142 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The typo should be now fixed. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Pronunciations

And three "IPA" representations of them, totally unintelligible to almost all readers. Not such a good idea, IPA. Lou Sander (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"al-‘Irāq" is perhaps the best or "al-3Irāq". 3 (chat) or ` (backquote) stand for `ayn (ع). ʕ is the API symbol for it, so it would be "al-ʕirāq" --Atitarev (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WMDs

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)

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

The point is moot. Not only were the inspectors were supposed to be allowed in, but they were supposed to have unfettered access. Saddam would block roads, deny access, and delay inspectors to such an extent as to make their job impossible. And no one has ever even tried to answer, if he had no weapons why not let in the international community in. If he thought the UN was biased he could invite teams from Japan,Russia,Germany,France to come in, open the sites, show the press. He had the same weapons he had in 1991, they had degraded to an non-deployable state. --mitrebox (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with any Intel experience or savvy knew that S.H. was bluffing, that he had to, to keep Iran and other enemies at bay. He (accurately felt that if they knew he DIDn't have WMDs, they would invade Iraq. It's reasonable to assume that GWB was also informed of this huge likelihood by CIA and other Intel sources' advice, but he chose to ignore and squash it, as it ran contrary to his intent. --JT (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If he would have come clean with the UN and the coalition, the sanctions would have been lifted and he would have been allowed to build a reasonable military force needed to defend Iraq from threats. That is a problem with tyrannies; they don't act rationally. Too bad for him, and his apologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Saddam Hussein admitted in interrogation that he did not let in inspectors because he wanted the rest of the world to think he had WMD's when he actually did not have any. Basically it was just a bluff. Also, The US has spent billions on trying to find any wmd's and the most the have found so far was an old wmd factory that had clearly been shut down since the treaty at the end of the persian gulf war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.1.110 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so explain this -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

Jokem (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is Fox News. If you need any further explaination, i pity you.

71.197.212.92 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who do not know to capitalize "i" should not be pitying anyone. 74.211.44.245 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WMD

However, no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been found since the invasion.[15]

Not true. Chemical weapons were found and a biological program that had not managed to be productive yet. What you mean is no nuclear WMD were found. Did you even read those reports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC) -Agreed. WMDs were found, plain and simple. 74.211.44.245 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

---

This give a reference which is a bad link.

What about the CycloSarin found by Polish forces?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that fox news is not considered a legitimate source by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.214 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I'd even trust CNN more than that.--Hamster X (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, How about this

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/2/112615.shtml

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/07/mil-040702-rferl02.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm

www.freerepublic.com/tag/cyclosarin/index?tab=articles

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=143&sid=5055996

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=12185667&PAG=461&rfi=9

I am pretty sure, though, that a reference which is a bad link is preferable to you two.

Jokem (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the revert monkeys are active again. Jokem (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

These articles say that Polish troops obtained old chemical weapons from the First Gulf War, and they were highly degraded and no longer useable. That has little relevance. The important question is whether Hussein continued any weapons programs after the First Gulf War, and possessed significant quantities of useable ones at the time of the invasion. There is no evidence for that. I'm going to clarify this in the article, which will make it apparent that this is not a relevant or important point. So it should probably be deleted. Also I will add this reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

Rotiro (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There, I changed it from "Yet, there are news reports which contradict this" to "There are accounts of Polish troops obtaining antiquated warheads, dating from the 1980s, two of which contained trace amounts of the nerve gas cyclosarin, but U.S. military tests found that the rounds so deteriorated that they 'were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces.'" The previous statement was very misleading, overreaching, and not an accurate representation of the references. The current statement is neutral and accurate, but so irrelevant and pointless that it should be deleted. Rotiro (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are determined to explain this away no matter what. And since the revert monkeys outnumber me, I have given up. The statement you have made is most likely true even of fresh, right off the assembly line warheads. The coalition forces are a modern, organized force, with precautions and preparations against nerve agents of a variety of types. You also are silent about whether such agents would be useful vs. civilians. So your 'explaination' is misleading. Jokem (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

The article lacks name of Iraq in other regional official languages of Aramaic and Azerbaijani. Also the redirect to Azerbaijani language in the infobox leads to South Azeri language which is a dialect and not the official regional language that is current in Iraq, thus the redirect should be corrected to the main Azerbaijani language. Neftchi (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It has the name in Arabic, Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic, it only lacks the name in Turkmen. That is until an Iraqi Turkmen comes along and provides it. From what I gather, the language/dialect spoken by the Turkic Iraqis [faithful to the geography] is somewhere in between Turkish Turkic and Iranian Turkic, thus somewhat unique from both - and referred to as "Turkmen", but it's not Turkmen Turkic. It's a distinct Iraqi Turkic dialect, so, it probably ought to have its own article, but until then the best we can do is link it to South Azeri, under its ethnonym "Turkmen". ^Izzedine 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is was I was talking about. The Turkmen language is by far the closest to Azerbaijani (Southern dialect) but it also contains some Arabic and Kurdish words, see the full report on ethnologue.com. I suggest we dont leave out Azerbaijani language all together but use captions such as: Turkmen (Azerbaijani), this will be a realistic report rather. Also Irak is written as İraq in Azerbaijani latin alphabet and as الجمهورية العراقية in Azerbaijani Arabic/Perso alphabet. Neftchi (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen is the accurate word, Azerbaijani is innacurate. Iraqi Turkmen is an Oguz Turkish dialect just like modern Turkish or Azeri Turkish, if we were to start adding Azerbaijani for every Oguz Turkish languages, we may just as well write Turkman in small (just like you propose for Azerbaijani) in articles where we have Azerbaijani words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that by far the Iraqi Turkemeni language is closest to Azerbaijani language with some Arabic and Kurdish words. I supported my argument with a source, you did not. Your personal opinion is inrelevant, read this report on the languages in Iraq. The report clearly states 600,000 Azerbaijani speakers in Iraq in 1982 census, mainly in the cities of Kirkuk, Arbil, Rowanduz and other areas southeast from Kirkuk as far as Al Miqdadiyah, Khanaqin, and Mandali; some in Mosul region. The classification of Turkmen language is: Azerbaijani (Southern). Here below I added the sentence:

"[azb] 600,000 in Iraq (1982). Kirkuk City, Arbil, Rowanduz, other areas southeast from Kirkuk as far as Al Miqdadiyah, Khanaqin, and Mandali; some in Mosul region."

Here you can see the report on Azerbaijani (Southern) language and it clearly reads "600,000 in Iraq (1982)" Neftchi (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is called Turkmen and that is the name used in the Constitution of Iraq, so we will use the right ethnonym - Turkmen (linked to South Azeri). ^Izzedine 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you just put away the Armenian-Azerbaijani perspective for a second, this has nothing to do with Karabakh. Because actually you are saying the same and thinking the same as I do. All Im saying is we should add in caption Azerbaijani; such as this, Turkmen (Azerbaijani). This way, it show the language as Turkmen but also says in caption that its a Azerbaijani dialect. Neftchi (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The language is called "Turkmen". The people are called "Turkmen". The Constitution of Iraq uses this term. The Turkmen use this term. Thus we should use "Turkmen", as the Constitutionally-recognized regional language, but, the closest relevant article it can be linked to is South Azeri (just as it is now). ^Izzedine 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Neftchi, you are the claimer, so it comes as a no surprise that you're the one bringing the source. Please don't bring conflicts from elsewhere here, what Armenian-Azerbaijani perspective? Izzedine for instance does not know yet, for instance why your attempt to introduce Azeri here has something to do with your problem with Mesopotamia. The fact that historic Mesopotamia covered regions which you consider as Southern Azerbaijan. The simple fact is that they are called Turkman and it's an Oguz Turkish dialect lie many other Oguz Turkic dialect.

• Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Assyria. This thread is over anyway, the language is called Turkmen, the Constitution uses the word Turkmen, so it will remain Turkmen. Not "Azerbaijani". ^Izzedine 04:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oil Bonanza in Iraq

This site: [oil] talks about an oil bomanza for Iraq, a its oil fields are again opened for foreigners.Agre22 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

And this this other site: [FT] writes that Iraq set to be second in oil league table soon.Agre22 (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Mesopotamia

The sentence "Also known as Mesopotamia" is incorrect, the given source ([6]) is first of all an unofficial source and second it refers to early 20th century during WWI from the Australian campagne perspective, before the establishment of a Iraqi Republic. Yes, maybe "back then" in 1919 it might have been known as Mesopotamia but certainly not today. I ask this sentence of Mesopotamia to be transferred to history section where it belongs. Neftchi (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• A better source would probably be useful, there are plenty out there, but it is right to link it there as Iraq has been known as Mesopotamia for a long time, and it still is. Countries are commonly known by more than one name; esp. exonymically or derivatively. ^Izzedine 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are plenty source then provide us with some, if not then Mesopotamia should be transferred to history section. Neftchi (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I will add some better references for it. ^Izzedine 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the way it reads, people may assume that Mesopotamia is an equivalent word for the modern country of Iraq. I just removed it because I could not know how to rephrase it. Modern Iraq is smaller by its borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• There was no country called "Mesopotamia", it's a completely fabricated word for "Ancient Iraq", because Iraq was part of Ottoman Turkey when European archaeologists began working in Iraq. "Mesopotamia" never existed - so it couldn't have had any borders. What did exist were civilizations along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers [and between them in the central and southern part]. These were in Iraq. A few settlements extended up the Euphrates and are now within Syria's border, but the border between Iraq and Syria was imposed by Britain and France after WWI and is artificial, the Syrians in eastern Syria are Iraqis. Before Iraq gained independence the people of the Tigris-Euphrates region used the word "Iraq" and "Iraqi" for their country and themselves respectively. What is referred to as Mesopotamia is fundamentally and principally Ancient Iraq and it is right that we make the connection clear, as is done with other countries. Most people don't have a clue that "Mesopotamia" is actually ancient Iraq. The Iraqi people have been robbed of their historical and cultural heritage. What gets me is why - after suffering a genocide and complete destruction of their country - people are so casually insensitive, even eagerly disrespectful, and fully ignorant when it comes to Iraq and its people. Ask scholars at the British or Pennsylvania Museums - and they'll tell you what the world owes Iraq. ^Izzedine 04:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a reliable published reference for the citation. Izzedine 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Before Iraq gained independence the people of the Tigris-Euphrates region used the word "Iraq" and "Iraqi"". I doubt if this is entirely true, (and I'm sure the "Iraqi" part is entirely untrue - for many decades Iraq has been "refining" what an "Iraqi" is - mostly by the majority killing or driving out any minorities it doesn't think should be called "Iraqi"). Regardless of it being historically correct or incorrect, the territory of Iraq was certainly widely known as Mesopotamia during WW1, and British soldiers fighting there colloqially called it "Messpot". So maybe wording something like "also formerly known as Mesopotamia" could be used. Meowy 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Meowy, outside the Arabic world it was known as Mesopotamia, but the people who lived there and other Arabic speakers called it Iraq and have done since the Arabic has been spoken there ~1600+ years (since a few centuries before Islam). Izzedine 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)