Talk:Iraq/Archive 2

message: the transliteration of the arabic script should be Komarî `Êraq . Komara `Îraqê is english writing. Ybgursey 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq's name in Kurdish 

message: The kurdish romanization doesn't correspond exactly to the arabic script kurdish. I thinkthey represent different dialects. please check. Also Iraqi Turkmen are using standard Turkish for official bussiness. please check. Ybgursey 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Information 

message: Iraq's official name in Arabic is not Aj-Jumhuriyah Al-'Iraqiyah. This translates to English as The Iraqi Republic.
It was changed in the late 80's or early 90's to Jumhuriat Al-Iraq. This translates to The Republic of Iraq.
Rightly so, the change was to make an emphasis on Iraq and not Republic.
Can you please rectify.
:Hello!
:In concordance with the information above I today corrected Iraq's official name in arabic letters to جمهورية العراق (Republic of Iraq). (Previosly it was الجمهورية العراقية - which transscribed is Al-Jumhuriya(t) al-Iraqiya(t) = The Iraqi Republic). / -- NM 194.47.110.98 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq's Official Name in Arabic 

message: This dosen't have a neutral point of view, it's is very right wing and pro-bush.
Tell me about it, all you have to do is change the word 'liberation' to occupation (as it really is), and you're blocked for vandalism. I checked the guy who blocked me....he was from North Carolina (surprise, surprise)! Everything is from such a US relative perspective.
I'll start by saying that I am a conservative American living in the South, though I opposed the war when it started, and continue to do so. I think that the best word is occupied - it merely means that there are troops there. There are troops there. 'Liberation' is POV, in that it assumes that the current persons there are freeing the citizens, whether admins want to admit it or not, whereas 'invasion' has the opposite POV, in that it implies military conquest for its own sake. Occupied, and occupation, though, are merely the state of having troops in the country, which is true (though I'll admit that when I hear the word occupation, the first thing I think of is Bajor). --Milton 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I've adapted a graphic template devised by our Croatian friends to create what will hopefully be an improved method of providing locator maps for Iraqi places. It's no longer necessary to create a separate locator map for each location. Instead, all you need to do is to specify a set of coordinates for the location in question and add them to the following template:
:
Here's a practical example. Al-Qa'im is at coordinates 34.366944, 41.138889. We want a small 150px wide locator map without a caption, and with the placename right-aligned to avoid it sticking out of the side of the map. The map on the right is produced using this code:
:
See Template:Location map for more information and further instructions on syntax.
To obtain the coordinates for any given place, you will need to look it up on the NGA geonames database and look for the coordinates in the "Map Information" box. You'll then need to convert these values to digital coordinates, which you can do using the converter at http://www2.comp.polyu.edu.hk/~04329143d/Location.html . The template uses only digital coordinates. -- ChrisO 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved location mapping for Iraq 

message: I noticed that User:Kavanagh made an edit falsely claiming that abuse of the oil-for-food program had killed half a million children in the 1990s, which is not supported by the cite given.  What the cited link said was that if Iraq's decline in child mortality in the '80s had continued to the late 90's, half a million deaths would have been prevented.  The link says that the sanctions were the likely cause, not the program set up to alleviate the sanctions' consequences.  The link makes no mention of the oil-for-food scandal. 
<BR> The article now says that "Over four thousand firms were implicated in the UN Oil for Food Scandal for allegedly receiving bribes and payments from Iraq."  This is also not supported by the cite given (it says 4 thousand were involved in the program, and 2 thousand were accused of abusing it), but more importantly the number of firms around the world that abused the program isn't relevant to an overview of Iraq.  I'm changing the article to include information that fits in with the sentence preceding it.  --Mr. Billion 23:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctions 

message: I included a link a website explaining how the 100,000 deaths was deduced . It was from a poll. Iraqbodycount.com lists specific incidents and from that places the casualties around 40,000 or so. I think both these are worth mentioning, but that the article should mention both of them in their context. --Milton 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian Casualties 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "Arab Iraq", "Arabian Iraq", and "Iraq Arabi" all the same thing? The current Name section makes it sound like "Iraq Arabi" was a distinct region different from "Arab Iraq". Kaldari 09:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Iraq 

message: I seem to remember hearing on the news that U.S. troops were not involved in any way except as spectators in the toppling of Saddam's statue. I remember this only because someone made a point of the significance of it, as if to say that the American troops were not behaving as conquerors, but rather "allowing" the people of Iraq to remove the "symbols of their oppression," as Americans like to believe our army always functions. I also recall hearing by word-of-mouth that Al-Jazeera was supposedly appalled at American journalism for glorifying the toppling of the statue, when according to them much of the Arab world viewed the act as the work of a minority group of extremists from within Iraq. I could be wrong, but would the author of the caption which says, "American troops toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein," please cite their source, or could someone please clarify? It may seem like a small detail but I think that being clear about who exactly toppled the statue is important to understanding the significance of that picture's place in history. --Techgeist 04:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statue scene was largely staged as a photo-op.  The huge crowd of Iraqis wasn't actually that huge, but most U.S. media avoided the larger context in favor the ratings-getting magic of the iconic moment. The Iraqis tried to pull the statue down themselves, but were unable.  So the Americans looped a chain around the top and pulled it down with a truck.  Here is a very good article on the subject.  Here is a short BBC photo set of the event.  A longer Boston Globe photoset.  Sourcewatch article on the event with a small collection of links, some better than others.  --Mr. Billion 06:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. Excellent links. --Techgeist 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the Toppled Statue of Hussein 

message: Chaldean again reverted my fully cited contributions: Revision as of 20:19, 18 July 2006, based on the allegation that it was "horrible" because I have citations next to the contributions and not in footnotes. The remedy for this "problem" would be to put the citations in footnotes. Deleting my contributions is vandalism in the guise of some sort of tidyness. This is not the first time. Please see talk page a couple of sections up. Then it was some other excuse. Please stop this!! What am I supposed to do with this guy? This is supposed to be a collaborative efforst. --NYCJosh 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Article Adminstrator, Help! 

message: It seems there are some revisionists here who would prefer to avoid any mention of Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and are trying to cover it up. These war-crimes are historical fact and further attempts to cover it up will be fixed.
Anyone care to explain the attempted cover-up? Tashtastic 12:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of history section

message: I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following included sentence: "Iraq was invaded in March 2003 by the United States and allies in response to an eventually discredited threat of nuclear weapon development by Hussein and established a Coalition Provisional Authority to govern Iraq." I searched through the various sources for that paragraph and didn't find anything related to the official reason for the invasion, further I believe the conclusion regarding Hussein's weapons programs are still inconclusive. I don't know how to fix it, any ideas? GromXXVII 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern History 

message: The article claims that Iraq won independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1919, but wasn't it owned by Britain from 1919 to 1932? (British Mandate of Iraq)--Fox Mccloud 15:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence 

message: The main article states "Recent (2006) conservative commentators have indicated that the actual reason for invasion was to create a democracy in Iraq for the sole purpose of deterring Iran."
I think it should be stated what Iran is being deterred from.
--Nat 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deterring Iran

message: There's some text in there of "ẽf ФДŅÐÃḌθ".  I'd try to remove it myself, but I'd want to remove any other vandalism done in the same edit. The vandalism is at least 100 edits old. 
Should the article be semi-protected so that vandalism doesn't chew up the edit history? Andjam 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can revert to a previous version using the History tab rather than deleting a vandalised article. This is why vandalism is more of a time-wasting nuisance than a disaster. You should also sign your comments here by typing ~~~~ after your entry.  Dabbler 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of article 

message: In regard to the reasons for invading Iraq.
Article said "Iraq was invaded in March 2003 by the United States and allies with the stated reasons that Iraq had not abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons development program according to United Nations resolutions, that it had links to Al Qaeda, and that it had known, effective Weapons of Mass Destruction. Later, it was indicated that the reason was to remove an oppressive dictator from power, and, even later, that the goal was to bring democracy to the middle east."
I corrected this, stating "Blatantly incorrect information. Bush's 2003 state of the union address clearly mentioned all these things PRIOR to the war. The article claimed that these things weren't mentioned until afterwards."
User "Dabbler" said "I read 2003 State of the Union address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) and it does NOT mention all these things." and reverted my change.  Dabbler is wrong.
Here is a quote from the January 2003 speech:
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation."
He is very clearly saying that Saddam is a cruel and oppressive dictator, and the liberation of Iraq will be better for their people.  The liberation was Saddam being removed, and a new (elected) government replacing it.
Thus, it cannot be said that "Later, it was indicated that the reason was to remove an oppressive dictator from power, and, even later, that the goal was to bring democracy to the middle east."
::Excuse me but you are hearing what you want to hear from President Bush's state of the union speech. YOu fail to recognize the fct that the President and his administration were asked by the media numerous times why they were invading Iraq or going to war to Iraq. There answers were in the sequence that you argue as wrong. Also you fail to acknowledge the official reason the U.S. government gave the U.N. and the internatiaonal community for entering Iraq. All these things override your assertions based on one speech. 69.196.164.190
:::The point of this is clearly stated by the original poster of this topic that the president said before the invasion of Iraq. This is a valuable addition as it is currently false and politically motivated. We are not putting words into the president's mouth by doing this. Simply putting on the record what he had said from the beggining regardless whether he had clearly stated each individual reason. This simply proves that the current 'later'and 'even later' inside of the current article to be false. Arcade123 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation of Iraq 

message: as of 207.29.128.130 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: :1. Well written?: Fail
:2. Factually accurate?: Fail
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: O. K.
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Fail
Additional comments :
* The article fails to give a lead section in accordance with the WP:LEAD guideline.
* Can there be a citation for the section on the name.
* :Image:Saddamstatue.jpg isn't tagged; :Image:Iraq 50 dinars Rewers.JPG doesn't have a valid tag.
* Please remove some weasel words and words that pertain to our present time such as recent, actual, etc.
This article may be broad in coverage but it lacks in many criteria asked by the GA process. Please read carefully the guidelines at WP:WIAGA and submit it again once they are met. Lincher 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: It's the Sumerian Gulf!
No Its the persian gulf so live with it ARAB camel jockey!!!!
Nah it was called with other name for a long time before persia even existed by the mesopotamians. Plus it's not called persian worldwide, in turkia for example it's called Basra Gulf, in Arab countries Arabian Gulf, other countries prefer to just name it The Gulf.. so who know what the name will settle at my dear ? -dan
Officially, it's still known as the Persian Gulf. Despite recent Arab and lazy American attempts to re-name it. Tashtastic 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop calling it the Persian GULF! 

message: This section, which was only veyr short recently, is getting too long. It has its own article. Do you all think it should be trimmed down? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, but currently the article contains far too much justification for the johns hopkins/lancet estimates, which diverge significantly from all other previous estimates. i'm going to trim it, and provide countering justification for previous estimates by respectable organizations (assuming  we are agreed that the UN is respectable?). Anastrophe 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation by Coalition Forces and Civilian Deaths 

message: The Official languages are Arabic and Kurdish. all is national level...(Constitution 2005)
:That's understood but there are exceptions. Read the referrences. Why must people ignore details. Say you want Aramaic and Turkoman removed. Don't try to be coy about it and proclaim that only Arabic and Kurdish are official. Is it because Assyrians are Christian or that Turkomans don't see themselves as Arabs or Kurds?סרגון יוחנא
Iraqi Turkmen now use standard turkish (of Turkey) for official bussiness.
Ybgursey 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  official languages 

message: I think it's a good idea to include information about the religious history of Iraq..it is the country Judeism and all monotheism was founded. (By Abraham, a Kurdish villager who later moved to Ur.)
--Waldo J. Cartridge 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abraham was not a Kurd. Don't try to "Kurdify" Abraham. Kurd wasn't even an ethnic group at the time of Abraham. Ethnic groups did not exist as we know them today. This whole "ethnic/racial" mess is a political tool to divide and conquer. Iraq is different than America Mr. Cartridge. Villages are still city-state like where everyone from a different village is almost seen as a different "race" so don't try to apply American or European characteristics of racial/ethnic division to Iraq. This Evil attribute has sparked all the recent conflict in the middle east. Why not a one-state solution to Israel/Palestine and just call it the holy land with the land divided into Jewish/Muslim/Christian counties where the goal of ultimate assimiliation into one society is put in place? Why must we divide? You can teach more than one language in school you know and still have religious freedom but with a semi-secular government that recongnizes each groups holidays.סרגון יוחנא
Abraham was of Semetic origin, whereas Kurds are of Aryan origin. But it is an interesting idea! However, Saladin was Kurdish and was born in Tikrit the same town Saddam was born. So it should be part of Kurdistan, its current residence would be so happy for that to happen!!
Haideral 23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheism

message: I propose that the following sentences be added to the Geography section:
While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90 percent of the county remains unexplored. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone. 
The reference is  (public domain)
Sincerely, Novickas 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil in Iraq 

message: Describing Iraq's economy as "Markets and bartering are the common form of trade" (Culture section) seems inappropriate. This is very probably true in remote rural areas and to a certain extent during wartime, but is in either case close to impossible to document. It's more likely that currency is used, but if it can't be documented either way, the sentence should be taken out. Comments anyone? Novickas 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markets and bartering 

message: Massive ethnic cleansing is taking place in Iraq at all levels. Kurds are driving out non-Kurd populations and repressing their political roles rom the Assyrians, Turkomans, Yezidis, and Arabs to even their own Kurds that don't belong to their political parties. Arabs are killing each other (Sunna vs Shi'a). Non-Iraqi Islamists are destroying the country killing anyone indiscriminantly. Americans are bombming their enemies in turn also causing damage. Iran and Syria are no doubt causing all sorts of havoc. Turkey wants to invade the North. Jesus Christ, Mahdi, Buddha where are you? It's a shame the Communists didn't overthrow the government before Saddam.סרגון יוחנא 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Cleansing and forced population migration 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Kurds}} 

message: see others previous comments on this
-----------------------------------------------------
yes, you're right. they are completely wrong. most estimates say Sunnis are about 20%, Shiites 60%, and Kurds 20%.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20051222-1320-iraq.html
CelestialDog 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurds are mostly Sunnis as well. Chaldean 04:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As is mentioned in the article there are no official figures. But all the existing estimates (CIA, BBC, etc.) all agree that Shia is ~60% and Sunni ~40%. The closet proof for that is that in the election the Shia cooalition parties got approx. 51% of the vote, so there is at least 51% Shia in the population. Haideral 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni/Shia proportions in demographics section are wrong 

message: Most of what Haideral has said is true, but not all. Kurds are Sunni, there is no conflict between Sunnis and Kurds, that would be a contradiction. The country has 2 main ethnic groups, Arabs and Kurds, nothing to do with religion. Now the ethnic arabs are divided into 2 religious groups: Sunni and Shia, whereas the Kurds are mainly Sunni. Wahabis do not believe in killing Shia, they simply believe they are deviated Muslims, similar to Protestant views of Catholics.
Saddam was an athiest, until it suited him, he believd in Ba'athism, which is effectively communism, with nationalism. 
The 2 main reasons for tensions are:
1) Takfiri insurgent groups (possibly backed by Saudi Arabia due to the wahabi link) fighting the occupation, trying to prevent Iranian dominance of Iraqi politics, and blaming certain Shias of being collaborators with the enemy occupiers, hence targetting them (we see this everyday in the news with suicide bombings against Shia)
2) Ironically and more significantly, the cause of Sunni frustration is rooted in the US backed government containing (Iranian backed) Shia "Death squads", wiping Sunni's out physically, or through intimidation, making all the Sunni intelligensia leave their posts, and neighbourhoods. Remember although Shia are 60%, and Sunni 40%, the educated elites were mainly Sunni, Shia were from the poorer south, the death squads have targetted educated Sunni's, to replace the posts they hold with Shias. See the following ground breaking report by Deborah Davies: "Over the last eighteen months these commandos - who are almost exclusively Shia Muslims - have been implicated in rounding up and killing thousands of ordinary Sunni civilians": http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=301
and: http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000477.php
It must also be noted in this article that Shia obey their Imams or Ayatullahs, and are obliged to obey them, so they block vote in unison based on this, unlike sunnis who don't belive in the Imam system of the Shia, so freely vote based on political preference, so their vote is split. Sunni's feel this Shia concept of Imams and Ayatullahs has subverted democracy. User:Aaliyah_Stevens 13:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for ethnic tensions are...

message: Wed Nov 22, 12:27 PM ET
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iraq's top doctors are under threat and are fleeing the country, leaving hospitals in the hands of medical students or junior physicians, an Iraqi lawmaker said Wednesday.
Doctors have been kidnapped and killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that toppled ex-Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein, said Dr. Rajaa al-Khuzai, an obstetrician who is an elected member of the Iraqi National Council.
"They have been targeted since the fall of the regime," she told The Associated Press during a visit to Austria. "Some of them have been kidnapped and found dead in the streets, some have been released after paying a ransom."
She also told reporters earlier Wednesday that Iraqi hospitals face a shortage of medicines and are in dire need of new equipment.
"We were promised, or we believed, that we would have many new hospitals being built, and many health centers ... but none of this has been done," she said. "No hospitals have been built so far; only some of the hospitals have been serviced."
"So if you want to see a good ophthalmologist in Baghdad, you'll never find one. If you want a good gynecologist ... you'll never find one," she said. "The health services are very bad."
Al-Khuzai also estimated that cancer cases have increased fivefold since the first
Gulf War in the early 1990s, and said there is a shortage of medicines to treat patients.
"We believe that allied forces at that time used depleted uranium because most of these cancer cases (are) found in the southern part of Iraq, which was close to Kuwait," she said....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_s_doctors
75.18.207.177 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctors are reportedly fleeing Iraq 

message: According to the definition of civil war in Wikipedia, I think it's pretty clear that the country it's not on the verge of civil war, but right in the middle of one. Yet the arcticle doesn't mention it as such.
An impartial, unbiased article should define it that way.
[Deleted Nonsense]
Yes as an Iraqi-Assyrian living in America, it has clearly been at civil war for some time now. "Insurgency" and "Sectarian Violence" are media "cover-ups" to make light of the situation so as to comply with someone's political agenda. I would like to see something completely unexpected be the outcome of this bloodbath. Perhaps we will see the emergence of the Iraqi Soviet Socialist Republic with the rebirth of the Soviet Union with Babylon as the capital... Though it's completely unlikely that would change the world.סרגון יוחנא 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to mention it, I have two things to say: first, we need to be careful to not include everything about the Iraq war in the Iraq article. Already, material has been creeping in that should have gone in Iraq War. Second, if we mention, we should mention it artfully, as it's a very polemic matter, and might violate WP:NPOV. A few sentences of description might do the work (we don't want to drone on, but we want to be precise). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't Iraq in [[civil war]]? 

message: This section is far too long for a general article on Iraq. Spending 6 paragraphs debating the methodology of a single report on the casualties of a single war in a country with a 6000 year history is inappropriate. The Lancet report demands 2 sentences at most. The ins and outs of the debate should be sent to Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. I'm going to wait for some feedback before making a change. Ashmoo 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 1000%. I've been saying for a while that we need to check the tendency for information on this war to creep into the article. Move it into Iraq War. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All that info, and the reference links, are both already in the pages for the various studies, counts, and estimates. So there is no need to worry about deleting any of it. I suggest linking to Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 using this wiki code: . I suggest also possibly using this template, too: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It covers the main estimates, links to the wiki pages for them, and is regularly updated. The wiki code to insert it is:  - --Timeshifter 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thanks for your input. I ended up including it as an inline link, as I think the dispute is not even notable enough for a 'see this article' style link. Ashmoo 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this problem is indicitive of a general problem in the History section, which is to focus too heavily on the history of Iraq as it relates to the US. This includes references to US newspaper columnists opinions on various situations, the US's involvement in previous Iraq wars (however minimal) etc. I'm going to go through and make the article about Iraq itself. Ashmoo 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loss of life... section

message: Please consider a link to the following page...
*Constitution for Iraq by Paul Niquette
...for a proposed constitution for Iraq.Paul Niquette 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please excuse me (a new wikipedian) for putting this request in the wrong place.  I shall appreciate guidance for putting it in the right place. Paul Niquette 21:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested External Link

message: Iraqi diaspora is up for deletion. Does anyone have any comments? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi diaspora 

message: In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Western Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Western Asia whose scope would include Iraq. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject