Talk:Iraq/Archive 3

message: The only reputable study of deaths caused by the conflict was The Lancet study. This places the mid-point estimate of deaths at 655,000. Another study, the Iraq Body Count project puts the death toll at less than 10% of this however, this uses reports from media sources and has no proven basis for this as a valid methodology.
This is astonishingly biased.  The IBC project is by far the most respected and relied upon source of casualty figures.  The Lancet Report is EXTREMELY controversial, and is usually not quoted excepted in highly "political" contexts.
: The Lancet study was a scientifically based attempt. IBC, which only relies on dual-sourced media reports (and does not include many Iraqi media sources) is, at best, a lower bound. The Lancet study, which uses standard statistical methods, can validly talk about a "mid-point" but, to be fair, the confidence intervals should be included, to show that Lancet is really saying it is within some number of 100s of thousands of 655,000 with 99% confidence. JoshNarins 10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an appropriate subject of a protected page edit request. Please wait four days for your account to become autoconfirmed, then you can edit the article for yourself. Try and seek consensus for these changes on this page in the meantime. Sandstein 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Ammiano

message: Why is US involvement in Iraq completely omitted in this article until 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait? The United States was fairly active in Iraqi politics well into the 60's -- active enough to help stage a coup. Why is Wikipedia sanctioning incomplete data about the US's direct involvement with the formation of the Republic? The CIA's involvement isn't a crack conspiracy theory, nor is it a mystery; several articles on Wikipedia already refer to it, such as the article for John Kennedy.
Sounds to me like our great, democratic online project is catering to specific somebodies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by K4rm4k4z3 (talk • contribs) 19:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
Your point is a valid one, but instead of complaining, why not add to the article with verifiable sources?
SteveRamone 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horrible scholarship. Obviously a biased article that needs reworking.

message: Plagiarism is so pervasive online, and sadly on wikipedia as well. Often when I run into the exact same words on wikipedia and elsewhere I am rather sure the other sites stole from wikipedia. However, here I find whole sentences lifted right from the CIA world factbook entry on Iraq! Now, don't get me wrong... I am certain the CIA is quite willing to stoop to plagiarism (hell, they TORTURE people, after all, so what do they care if they piss off English teachers like myself?) but I rather doubt they did in THIS case. 
One quick example: 1st sentence in this article's section on economy and 1st sentence in equivalent cia factbook section. It greatly reduces the credibility of the site when you do this, so just don't. If you can't manage to use your OWN words then please don't use any. When you plagiarize you are hurting, not helping, the site. Really there is no excuse, not when you can so easily get help with your writing from others devoting time and effort to improve wikipedia. --Fitzhugh 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism is a sign of weak mind. Please people - write your own words. It is not THAT hard!

message: I see that the article was recently categorized as Territories under military occupation.
Since, according to the article Multinational force in Iraq, the occupation formally ended on June 28, 2004, and there appears to be a status of forces agreement with the sovereign government, this would not appear to be NPOV.
I propose reversion. --Boson 01:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the government of Iraq sovereign? --- Safemariner 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Territories under military occupation 

message: So let me get this straight...first there was the CPA, then the IGC, then the IIG and then the ITG? Any more transitional governments in the history of this obviously very provisional country? I mean, come on, how much care can a government take? VolatileChemical 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary governments 

message: I noticed the date of 1509 doesn't fit, is it supposed to be 1609?
Finwar 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  under the Ottoman empire section 

message: As the beginning of the article says Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War. It seems likely if not inevitable that the country will be partitioned three ways with the Sunnis to the left of the Euphrates, the Shia to the right and an independent Kurdistan coming into existence in the North. Should the article have some mention of this? Also the borders of present day Iraq are invented and the political entity is artificial. The article does not make that clear. SmokeyTheCat 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Breaking up Iraq into sectarian micro-nations may be the intent of American strategy, but it is not what the majority of Iraqi people themselves seem to want. BBC report on Iraqi opinion Dabbler 11:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End Of Iraq ? (an invented country) 

message: dividing iraq would mean dividing the whole arab world. even the americans are not stupid enough to "want" that. this would be an even greater mess than it already is... the kurds might love to reunite with their brothers in Turkey (a NATO member) the Shia might love to join Iran (a rogue state), and the Sunnis...well maybe palestine (almost anarchy)... it would lead to some chaos... maybe fair borders in the end... but is there really no way go there peacefully? I believe that it will take a while to settle this. it will not be easy! it will take casualties! but god dammit: the europeans killed each other for even longer, but where are they now? We should try to calm them down and, over generations wounds will heal and they might find a way to live together... its just a project that requires more than one president working on it, maybe five to ten.... well 40-80 years from now maybe (optimistically)...
Divding poeple is never successful, bringing them together sometimes ... lets try it - over and over again... 
81.152.206.175 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: invented country

message: I removed the following, it should either be reworded so it doesn't start off with "It is unknown...."  and the reference cited or left out as speculation.
"It is unknown whether the changes in Iraqi government beginning in 1958 were at least partially orchestrated by Egyptian President Nasser as part of his goal to draw Iraq into the United Arab Republic." Dabbler 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed bit about Nasser provoking July 14 Revolution

message: I'm new so I can't do this myself yet, but can someone please change the name of the river in the second paragraph so that it does not erroneously refer to a female Tiger? Amateur Mendicant 19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor nitpick

message: Section 2.8 2003 Invasion by US lead Coalition Forces
This should be US led, not lead. The title seems long and awkward and could be changed to 2003 invasion 
Waj 22:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 2.8 spelling 

message: Does this article say who is leading Iraq right now? I would like someone to please tell me so i can find out. wikipedia should know this but i can't find it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.248.158.30 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  leaders? 

message: This segment under "Post-invasion Iraq" is a bit confusing:
"After the invasion, al-Qaeda took advantaged of the insurgency to entrench itself in the country[9]"
The article that #9 links to does not support the statement that it accompanies.  In fact, it seems to defy that statement.  Am I mistaken? Mullah Nasrudin 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Qaeda? 

message: The article reads: "al-Qaeda took advantaged of the insurgency"
Where it should read: "al-Qaeda took advantage of the insurgency"
Although to further remove bias I would change it to read:
"al-Qaeda operatives entered Iraq during the insurgency"
Or something to that effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.198.233.11 (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected to "advantage" --h2g2bob (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error in Post-Invasion Iraq 

message: I just saw Iraq's national security adviser (Stephen Hadley's counterpart) on PBS. His class, eloquence, confidence, and dogged optimism was pleasantly uplifting. Does anyone know his name, or where I can find info about him here on Wikipedia? Also, perhaps, if an article on him exists, the Iraq article could link to his article. --Remi 08:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The equivalent, I think, is the Minister of State for National Security. The current office-holder is Shirwan al-Waili. As to your suggestion: I don't think the articles should be directly linked. By following the link from Politics in Iraq you can find his article without too much difficulty. RedRabbit1983 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq's national security adviser... 

message: In the most recent millennium, what is now Iraq has been made up of five cultural areas: Kurdish in the north centered on Arbil, Sunni Islamic Arabs in the center around Baghdad, Shi'a Islamic Arabs in the south centered on Basra, the Assyrians, a Christian people, living in various cities in the north, and the Marsh Arabs, a nomadic people, who live on the marshlands of the central river. Markets and bartering are the common form of trade.
"islamic" in this context should be replaced by "muslim" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.218.154.197 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "islamic culture" 

message: I think the following part of the first sentence should be moved to etymology ((...conventional short form: Iraq) (Arabic: العراق (help·info)   transliteration: 'al-‘Irāq,Turkish: Irak, Assyrian: ܥܪܐܩ, Kurdish: عيَراق)). Thoughts?Abdalla 01:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentence 

message: I dont think there is a need for the gallery at the end of the article, it seems insignificant and if any pictures are really important they should be incorprated within the rest of the article. Abdalla 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: In the sub-article title "governorates", there is problem with the numbering beside the faultless map. Babil, Karbala, An Najaf, Al Anbar, Ninawa, Dahuk, Arbil, At Ta'mim (Kirkuk), As Sulaymaniyah...are numbered 1 to 9 when really they should be numbered 10 to 18, I tired changing this and was unsuccessful, any body who can please do so. Thanks, Abdalla A 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governorates