Talk:Iraq/Archive 1

message: 1. Their are a few Armenians left in Iraq, but they do not speak Armenian, thous Armenian is not spoken in Iraq. 
2. Turkish and Assyrian has become offical languages of the country according to the new consitution as well. 
Chaldean 15:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Things

message: Can somebody please pull down that pictures of the half naked girls? 
Come on, I am sure you can find other pictures of American soldiers. 
Please, have some respect to our society. 
Chaldean 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. I can see why you are offended by it - it annoyed me, and I'm from England. "Iraqi Protectors" indeed - it stinks of propaganda. WMarsh 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A known vandal is trying to make this image persist. I'm sure that we're not the only ones who feel that an image of skanky women next to Western soliders isn't appropriate content for the Iraq article. Please, if you feel strongly about this, voice your opinions here. I am not going to remove the image again as I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. WMarsh 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's relevant to this article. It needs to go.Willy Logan 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, keep it out. --Vector4F 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody explain to me why is it still here?  I'll be referring back to history. Evil Deep Blue 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As a Iraqi, I feel offended

message: At the moment, the main body of this article (History section) starts out in somewhat fractured prose:
:"Modern Iraq became a British mandate at the end of World War I, and was granted independence from British control in 1932. It was formed out of three former Ottoman Willayats (regions): Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. The British installed Hashemite monarchy"
I think this text should mention, maybe not in so many words, but at least not misleadingly:
*It was a League of Nations mandate that has come to be called the British Mandate, rather than a mandate of the British government.
*It was the intent of the mandate to form Iraq as one of a half dozen or so nation states, rather than being something the British decided.
and fixing those points would fix the silly statement that "modern Iraq became a British mandate" since it didn't even exist at the time and it doesn't make sense to talk about modernity in the past test like this.
Brassrat 15:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening text not very good 

message: was in-line
I find it very difficult to make this brief. Basically, there has been a war in Iraq rendering large parts of this entry wrong. Saddam H was accused of having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the US, UK, Spain and loads of other countries went to war. It is now ruled by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) and handover of power will be in 73 days today. Click here for more detail.--03webberg 16:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From article

message: The article states, "implementation of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme in December 1996 has helped improve conditions for the average Iraqi citizen." The oil-for-food program has long been criticized as ineffectual. There have been accusations that the program was grossly mismanaged by the UN, that the US blocked a large percentage of medical and other purchases, and that Saddam sold the shipments to pad his own coffers. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any strong evidence that the program substantially impacted the lives of average Iraqis. --SamClayton 17:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is questionable at best. Mark Richards 23:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil for Food Program

message: from US point of view --Kyknos 18:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What can you really expect from a *free* encyclopedia that allows anyone who views it to edit it?  Of course it's going to be re-written and biased towards one view by the first nitwit that sees something they disagree with.  Then, 3 hours later, another dimwitted individual comes and re-edits the edit to their POV which probably doesn't coincide with either of the first two writers of the article, only to be followed by the fourth individual who may actually be an expert and edits it...etc.etc.etc... ad infinitum.  If you really want factually information, go live there, jeeze.  Couppawn 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is biased 

message: In the article it's stated that the occupation has ended although most people in the world still consider the country occupied. What is the legitimacy status of the goverment under internation law? Elgogg 29 Jul 2004
:It's hard to say, has the UN resolution supporting the interim govt passed yet? The fact of the matter is that the US military forces are still controlling the country, although now with the permission of an unelected government that they put into power. If it's not an occupation, then the word is taking on a strange new meaning. Mark Richards 17:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation ended? 

message: Many of the external site links should be moved to another article. I can see having one link to Amnesty International but not six. This is a general article about Iraq in which the US occupation is of course mentioned but looking at the links it appears that the war is the only thing about Iraq that matters.  --LeeHunter 21:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links need editing 

message: Is Iraq's official name the Republic or Iraq or the State of Iraq?  (Alphaboi867 03:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Republic.  See . --Kenyon 23:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
mmm... we should mention also that now is a Federal Republic. Messhermit 17:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic or State? 

message: To the unknown person who insists on changing the article to say that Jalal Talabani and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, are President and P.M, I will say this. There has been absolutely NO announcement that either man will be the next leaders of Iraq. I appreciate that you believe they will be, as do I, but it was also believed that Ghazi Yawer would be speaker. This did NOT materialise. I could make an educated guess about who the next President of Kyrgyzstan will be, but I do not note it as a fact. Why? Because Wikipedia does not deal in 'Educated Guesses". We are only interested in facts. Allawi is still Interim Prime Minister, and so he will remain noted as so until a replacement is OFFICIALLY announced.
Stop tampering with this article.
Matty J 87
: Listen, I didn't make any of these edits, so I'm not being defensive or something; and I totally get your point and I'm not disputing its truth. But can't you see that what is actually being exposed is a weakness of how wikipedia is implemented? People are encouraged to fix things when they see them, that rough edges are better than missing facts. People are not "tampering" with the article, and it is totally understandable that they don't read voluminous comments and compare histories in order to learn that the new PM is not official yet. You are spitting into the wind if you you think your note at the bottom of the talk page is going to have any effect. Better to edit the article in such a way that people can see that the new facts have been added already. Better still would be a wikipedia "system" for handling transitional stuff like this since it is bound to happen again and again. Brassrat 17:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim Leader 

message: What are some native crafts and activities?
:What do you mean by that?  They play soccer for one... there are many ethnic groups within Iraq.  You want a characteristic craft/activity?--160.39.195.88 23:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: Does Modern Iraq equal "Lesser Iran" as one anon is trying to say?  He is removing "The Cliff" and replacing it with "Lesser Iran" to describe modern Iraq. Is that accurate? - Tεxτurε 21:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Iraq  = Lesser Iran? 

message: The map on this article comes from the CIA world factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/maps/iz-map.gif
Is it copyrighted material?
AFAIK, no, CIA publications are not copyrighted... --Cyr 18:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issue with the map 

message: This "The current situation remains volatile" sounds like a euphemism; isn't wikipedia policy to avoid euphemisms? The article on the Lebanese civil war doesn't say "period of volatility" :) ~~
:I don't think it's so much a euphemism as it is an underrating of the situation in Iraq. It certainly is volatile, but more than that it is highly unstable. I think a better description would have been, "Since the 2003 invasion Iraq's security, economy, and infrastructure continue to suffer from regular insurgent activities such as public bombings and targeted kidnappings which threaten the nation's stability." --Acefox 20:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  euphemism? 

message: This article is more like what a Republican or Dubya fan would speak of. there is no mention of number of children dead due to US / UN sanctions. there is no mention of number of innocent dead due to invasion of Iraq by US & UK. please be factual. 
There is also no mention of Tourism in Iraq, about the famous Tigris river. 
there is no mention about the Political Turmoil occuring in Iraq, with surge of bombings happening. the wide difference between Opposition Party & people in power.
please check article on Hans Blix where it is said Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation; and Blix's statements that contradicted Bush administration claims about the Iraq WMD program.
Article also talks of what US did for Iraq. why? Why is there no mention about Oil companies pumping oil. their profits. 
 Navendu 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completly Biased 

message: I keep hearing about Iraqi leaders debating the unfinished constitution... so how is this possible...?:http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html
freestylefrappe 02:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Changing "is considered to have almost failed to pass (as a few more votes against it would have caused its defeat, due to three provinces rejecting it by more than 2/3)." to reflect what is in the main article on the constitution. PhatJew 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The constitution passed. However the Iraqi Accord Front agrred to participate in the December 2005 elections on the basis that amendments would be considered by the new Assembly in the first four month. Any amendments agreed would need to be passed in a new referendum. See Government of Iraq, 2006-2010 AndrewRT 10:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution Confusion 

message: "The U.S. has spent eight billion dollars in the last year in an effort to improve the situation."
Where does the information come from? Does this $8bn completely exclude Iraqi oil revenues (where virtually all non-military spending by the US in Iraq comes from)? Does it include US spending on security? Does it include money wasted through corruption? 
"Although the output of electricity has gone down in Iraq, from nearly 5,000 MW to 4,100 MW, this is most likely due to increasing consumption and a more equitable distribution of the power being used in areas of Iraq which didn't get electricity before."
Hmmm. so Electricity distribution is fairer and more people are using it, which means that electricity supply has dropped nearly 20%. Who thinks this very implausible explanation is the most likely one? This is garbage!
No it is not, apart from some of the major cities in Iraq, most of the country is experiencing between 3-6 hours of electricity in interim periods, Baghdad is not the example for the rest of the country. And yes, also increased consumption of 'white goods' and electronics have increased the demand on the electricity production, but I guess a good knock against the US is better than looking at the semantics right? 
Ryan-Liam 
:I was going to post the same comment. This sentence should be removed. 69.156.163.80 17:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? This seems inaccurate 

message: I'm not sure where this should go (or if it should go on a subpage) but from Current events for 1 September:
*Iraq hanged three men in the first executions in the country since the 2003 invasion. The three men were part of the Jaish Ansar al-Sunna group and had been convicted of kidnapping and murdering three policemen and abducting, raping and killing Iraqi women. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani refused to sign the death warrants, with his Deputy President Adel Abdul Mehdi signing instead. Talabani has also said he will refuse to sign the death warrant of Saddam Hussein should he be convicted and sentenced to death. (Times Online)
Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death penalty 

message: Under the section about politics in Iraq, I don't think the right word is hailed near "has been hailed as more liberal than...". Some people don't like Liberalism. Is there a better word? Like saying "The idea has been floating around that the Iraqi interim constitution may be more liberal than...".
:I've adjusted it. glocks out 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hailed? 

message: The article includes the following statement:
On January 30, 2005, Iraq held new legislative elections, changing the political face of Iraq, which had been previously a lay state, without any religion conflict,while it's now divided over a religious base having no tradition in the country. 
Does anyone think it is reasonable to say that Iraq did not have any "religion conflict" prior to the legislative elections of January 2005? Ordinary Person
::Iraq have and has religion conflicts between Sunni Arabs,Shia Arabs,Kurds and Assyrians.--Sargon 16:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "No Religion Conflict"

message: does anybody have a source for the claim that the new flag is currently official? --Revolución (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - there are two headings for this. glocks out 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, not the ugly failed 2004 flag, this new flag they've been showing on this article. --Revolución (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see above. This new flag you speak of is already being discussed. . glocks out 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: for cryin' out loud, I don't mean that flag! --Revolución (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: new "flag"

message: I realize that this article is mostly Bush/Cheney propaganda, but this (quote from article text) "Furthermore, since the coalition forces are currently working to maintain order and create a stable society under the United Nations" surely is too counter-factual even for this article? Fabase 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN-government in Iraq (haha) 

message: Iraq was always part of persia more or less, so is it safe to say that iraqis are perso-arabs? aryan-seimitic mixture?is it safe to say that? iraq was conquered and influnced by arabs largely after conquering persia, so there's no doubt that persian people lived there,specially when cteisphon the capital of sassanids is located only a few kilometers north of baghdad?what do you say>?
Thanks for bringing it up. Wikibofh 17:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi people/Aryan-Semitic Mix? 

message: Could use someone's help in filling out the Middle East/North Africa section.  Thanks.--Culturesoftheworld 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultures of the World]] stub 

message: The current introduction for this article should not include so much information on the origins and ancient history of the country. Moving all but the most basic information on the history and origins of the country should be moved into another category.TrogdorPolitiks 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction??? 

message: Is there any other source apart from the NYTimes editorial board (not the most neutral group of guys) that documents US involvement in the 1963 coup? It also seems a bit odd to have it take up half of the history section. CJK 22:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use footnotes for such citations in future, thanks --Cam 18:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA backing

message: The Politics section of most country articles seems to be a basic description of the political structures of the country: basically the executive, legislative, and judicial structures and how they work and interact, with maybe a paragraph or two about special issues that these structures face. I think we could prune quite a bit from the current section to move toward consistency with other country articles. Keep in mind there is a Politics of Iraq article where more detail can be worked out.
The Politics section here should in my opinion briefly describe the basic structure of the transitional 2004-05 regime and how it was set up, briefly talk about a new constitution being worked out, then briefly describe the set-up called for in the new constitution. Then a NPOV paragraph or two about the unique situation that the government of Iraq is in. Any more detail can be put into the main article (Politics of Iraq). --Cam 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics section

message: I would like to start a new article looking at the new government of Iraq since the December 2005 elections. The material from the December elections woudl be transferred in. What should the new article be called? AndrewRT 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Government of Iraq, 2006-2010. AndrewRT 17:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article - Government of Iraq since 2006 

message: "Iraq gained independence after being liberated by the U.S. military."
I disagree with the the use of the term "gained independence" in this statement.  Iraq was an independent country before the US-British coalition forces invaded.
Also the word "liberated" seems inappropriate.  Some Iraqis may not have liked Saddam Hussein's government, but to say that they have been "liberated" implies they were being occupied by a foreign government.
:I agree with the above. "Liberated" in definite NPOV AndrewRT 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of terms used in this sentence are debatable 

message: I removed the following paragraph from the Demographics section of the article and changed the numbers to those of the latest World Factbook. --Cam 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: Some sections in the article are extremely too large and should be shortened and moved to the relevant articles which directly discuss the matter. Plesae notice that in this article we should not write any thing on Iraq in details but a fine introduction on various sides of the country such as its economy, history, politics etc. Thanks Diyako Talk + 18:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user Diyako who has commented above has a agenda based on Israeli view points to reshape the Middle East in my opinion. Read his comments and contributions. He has been working on seperatist policies involving Kurdistan and vandalising Iranian related articles with false information and misinformative facts. 69.196.139.250 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true (or maybe not). However, I think he makes a good point. Where a main article exists this article shuld only briefly summarise the issue, leaving the details to the main article. The current Politics of Iraq section is too long. AndrewRT 11:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let him what thinks about me, think; but it's not true! I'm an ordinary man. Diyako Talk + 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the result of the election deleted? Now there is some part about minorities but nothing about the actual government and the concerns about a civil war, and the ongoing occupation are separated from this under modern history. I am not quite convinced by the current version. De mortuis... 11:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against whatever you write in the aricle I just opposed the too long sections not the containt of the article. Feel free change the politics section as you wish. Also the minority section is indeed unnecessary here. I think it should be merged with another page. Diyako Talk + 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too large sections

message: I've just caught two errors that have lasted for months.  One was on 18:38, 20 January 2006 by User:61.246.200.13--a very obvious change of "desert" to "monsoon".  That should have been caught immediately.  The other was 13:14, 14 December 2005 by User:195.92.40.49 and it was either an honest mistake or very sneaky vandalism.  We should be more vigilant. --Mr. Billion 05:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent errors 

message: Is there any reason why this entry has deteriorated so badly? The standard of writing and information here is terrible compared with earlier versions. The History, Modern history and politics sections are an embarrassment. I mean, we have Iraq being granted independence in 1932 cut straight into "Saddam's dictatorial and bloody rule lasted throughout the Iraq-Iran War"... What’s frustrating is that previous versions carried important information that editors have somehow deemed to remove, especially the essential early 60's material.
Is anyone willing to collaborate to revamp this page and bring it in line? --Zleitzen 04:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to collaborate on this. To start with can I archive the talk page? I've been working on the Government of Iraq, 2006-2010 and Politics of Iraq pages and have tried a bit of rationalisation here. What do you think the priorities should be? AndrewRT 12:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means archive this talk page, in order to start afresh. 
The aim should be to lift the article to approximately the size and standard of the Australia page. I think we need to;
* Re-examine / restructure the categories
* Rewrite the material from scratch, (encompassing material from much earlier edits if need be). Essential in the History, Modern History and Politics sections, to bring them in line with the pages they gateway. The priorities should be to outline clear, brief, NPOV and informative thumbnails. For example, the history (even the modern history) of Iraq should not be dominated by the 2003 invasion. 
Will take a look at the categories seeing what can be improved and reply with a day or so. --Zleitzen 13:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appalling Standard 

message: The section about minorities mentions oppression of Turkmens as well as speakers of the Turkish language, creating the impression that Turkmens speak the Turkish language. Someone who knows more about the subject might want to read through this section carefully, and try to figure out if the author confused Turkish with the Turkmen language, or if the wording is just a bit confused.
Robert 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkmen and Turkish 

message: ::All the beheadings, murder of foreign reporters (who would want reporters to die, except those hiding or trying to hide the truth!), mosque bombings, and terrorist activities in Iraq are committed or sanctioned by Anglo-American occupation forces or Israel. Israel is very much so involved in North Iraq that is why there is new claims that Kurds and Jews are one and the same race by Israelis. This has resulte din an alliance between a very small minority of Iraqi Kurd leaders who want to control this are for their own personal ends and Israelis. Connect the dots with what is happening from Iraq to Iran. Instability in Iraq gives the occupation forces reasons to stay.  
Here is proof:
British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?: Media Blackout Shadows Why Black Op Soldiers Were Arrested: USA, Information Liberation
[]
Britain "apologizes" for terrorist act in Basra; Rescue of SAS men who were planning to place bombs in Basra City Square: Global Research.ca, Center for Research on Globalization
[]
The next link is photographic evidence taken by Iraqi Police, before British Military attacked police station and freed the British terrorist operatives.
[]
Caught red-handed: The Raw Story, North America
[]
Troops free SAS men from jail: The Telegraph, United Kingdom
[]
Iran accuses UK of bombing link: BBC, United Kingdom
[]
Basra council severs relations with British: Daily Star, Lebanon
[]
Basra Council Cutting Ties with British: China Radio International (CRI), China
[]
AND FINALLY FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CLAIM IRAQ WAS LIBERATED LOOK AND SEE HOW THE FAMOUS STATUE SCENE WHERE SADDAM'S STAUTE WAS PULLED DOWN WAS A HOEX THAT THE MEDIA WAS A PART OF. CNN LYED. TIME MAGAZINE FABRICATED INFORMATION. LOOK AT THES PICTURES AND SEE THE SO CALLED MASSES THAT CNN REPORTED. See how the so-called happy were really not Iraqi civilians.
[]
The World Council of Churches includes various Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church, and various Protestant Churches. It is the world's biggest CHurch and Chrisitian body and gathering. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member and has condemned the war separately on many occasions along with other churches and religious leaders. Thye have condemd the war in Iraq as amoral and terorist and the American delegation has apologized to the world for American foreign policy and reigning terror down on Iraq.
Here are some random headlines on the issue of the sizeable and vastly-built coalition of Churches that appose George W. Bush, American foreign policy, and the illegal Anglo-American occupation of Iraq.
U.S. church alliance denounces Iraq War: Seattle Post Intelligencer
[]
U.S. church alliance: Washington is ‘raining down terror’ with Iraq war, other policies: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada’s National News Agency
[]
US Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War Star Tribune, Wyoming News, WY
[]
U.S. Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War: Uruknet.info, Italy
[]
US churches denounce Iraq War: Scotsman, United Kingdom
[]
U.S. Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War: San Francisco Independent Media Center
[]
US Christian leaders Apologize to Assembly plenary on violence, poverty and ecology: World Council of Churches, News Section
[]
 
69.196.139.250 03:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This in my eyes is link spam (16 links), and racist, so I deleted it. As I was reverted I leave it to others to decide. De mortuis... 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is actually very informative. Wow; it is really good to read over what is said in these statments they make you understand the occupational story of Iraq by the US and UK. 72.57.230.179 08:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people really want to post this kind of this I say let them go ahead. Personally I don't think it's link spam (all the links are related to Iraq), or racist, but I do think it's pointless. Talk pages are for discussing the content of articles and nothing there links into this article. The effort of the above poster would be better spent linking this information into the articles themselves rather then having a rant on the talk page. AndrewRT 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All the Terrorism in Iraq is by the Anglo-American forces