Talk:January 2005 Iraqi parliamentary election/Archive 1

message: Why is it that Iraqi expatriates are permitted to vote? This is not the practice of other democratic nations. Also, will iraqis living in the United States or Europe be permitted to vote in the next Iraqi election?
:Don't most countries permit expats to vote?  The US lets citizens residing overseas to file absentee votes.  I think that the big difference is that with Iraq, there are actual voting stations outside the country, but that is because it is more practical to errect a couple dozen stations than air mail planes of ballots for counting in Baghdad. --Bletch 13:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the same reasons that the Shining Path tried to ruin elections in Peru during the 1990s.  The Iraqi resistance is in an armed struggle against the occupation.  Because the occupation is the effective sponsor of the elections, they are not perceived as legitimate, and thus according to them should be boycotted.  It is a pattern typical in countries that have armed insurgencies.  --Bletch 18:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: In case I did not make myself clear, I was just offering an analysis.  Not an actual endorsement.  FWIW, I disapprove of the Iraqi Resistance for precisely those reasons.  --Bletch 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expatriates permitted to vote?

message: ----
	¿Is Iraq using open or close list system?
Closed list. (Alphaboi867 17:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Open or close list system

message: Hey Adam, why do you persist in qualifying the gorby quatation?  Also, stating in the check in comments that he "doesn't know what he is taking about" is POV, right?  Someone stating democracy can not be imposed with guns and tanks is a perfectly acceptable remote analysis, right? Why should someone have to go to iraq to see the obviousness of it?  Even W has said he understands that people do not like to be occupied.  If you are so keen on caveating everything would you mind if I or someone added caveats all over the article?  The point of a "reactions" is to be free of caveats, various reasonable opinions are presented without commentary, the way you have caveated it I believe is POV. zen master    T  02:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, a "reactions" section is not the place to be qualifying anything.  If someone was criticizing Gorby specifically for saying what he did when he did it then you'd have a point but they are not, you are making up instant criticisms.  A reactions section is meant to state criticisms, not present facts.  I may remove or tone down your woefully unnecessary caveat, unless Christian or someone does it first. zen master    T  03:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zen-master with one addition - qualifications would be appropriate if the information in the qualifications is not readily known.  Anybody can go and read Gorby's article and find out that he hasn't held office in 14 years.  If the qualifications were something very specific to the situation (like lets say he had a financial interest in the Iraq election failing), then they would be appropriate.  I would also like to add a statement saying "It is unclear whether Gorbachev is alledging bonafide fraud or just ineffectuality."  When I read the quote, I assumed the latter but it seems that my view is not shared by everybody. --Bletch 15:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've spoken too soon :-).  It seems that the statement was elaborated further since I last read it; making my new qualification unnecessary.  --Bletch 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  gorby quotation caveat 

message: Does anyone know when the next two elections are going to take place? 69.212.73.96 02:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is supposed to be another election in December 2005.  Mark 23:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When are next elections? 

message: i moved this page to Iraqi parliamentary election, 2005 in accordance to wikipedia convention--Jiang 03:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a good idea? Is the new "National Assembly" going to be a real parliament?  I thought it was just an interim body that would write the constitution.  --Jfruh 00:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It will function as a parliament AND right a new constitution.  The new page name is apprpriate. (Alphaboi867 02:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well the new National Assembly will elect a 3 member Presidential Council that will in turn appoint a Prime Minister to actually run the government.  Will the PM answer to the Assembly, the Presidential Council, or both?  If he (she?) needs the confidence of the Assembly then Iraqi qualifies as a parliamentary system, though not a Westminster style one. (Alphaboi867 05:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm moving this to Iraqi legislative election, 2005. (Alphaboi867 22:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: There are many that claim the iraq elections was disrupted because of 44 dead voters, so at the very least I think we should add a caveat that says something to the effect of "some believe the election was a farce" or "some believe the turnout percentages are inaccurate" with relevant citations of course. Why is everyone so keen on accepting the MSM's insistance that the election experienced no/little disruption?  If the election was disrupted how would we know it?  What does it take for an election to be considered disrupted? zen master    T  12:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  44 dead voters = disrupted election? 

message: Why has this page been locked? am I to sift through the mindless rantings of some here, only to come to the end where I find for trying to argue against the conspricy theories, a man I respect has been banned for 24 hours? what the censored is going on? Pellaken 23:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also deleteting of external links.  Surely the only grounds for deleting a link is that it is off topic and those links were clearly on-topic? Dejvid 04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this page still blocked??????Dejvid 15:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PageLock

message: ----
	¿Should we allow a criticism of the the party-line in the article?
	Yes
#	Ŭalabio 02:59, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
	No
#	Dissent from the party line will not be tolerated. All dissenters will be blocked. Pax Americana.
#:	(I'm being sarcastic, obviously.) Oh, and could you refrain from creating section breaks around your Talk posts? It interrupts the page flow. --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
	
		"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."	
 	--
		President Theodore Roosevelt,		speaking on President Wilson's crackdown on dissent after the U.S. entered W.W.I
	
	So now, you do not like my talksectiontemplate:
	----
	==		(Subject)		==
	----
		(Comment or question)	
	--
	
	~~~~
	
	----
	I never got any complaints before, and pasting it onto a talkpage makes new sectioncreation a breeze.  Whenever I have the honor of archiving, a talkpage or creating one from whole clothe, I just paste this baby onto the clean empty talkpage:
	----
	
	==	 Archive  --  Start a new discussion	==
	
	----
	¡Start a new discussion is cool!  
	--
	Ŭalabio 23:56, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
:I didn't know it was something you did on every Talk page. You don't have to change it (obviously); I just find it a bit annoying, but I'll cope. --Slowking Man 06:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
----
What has all this got to do with anything in the article? It's about time (some) Americans realised that what happens in Iraq is not just all about American domestic politics. It's about what happens to 20 million Iraqis, who (whether you like it or not) have just been given the chance to vote in their first democratic election. Adam 03:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, we are past "major disruption" now, please look additions to this talk page and the changes others have made to the article since it came off of protection.  I admit I was wrong to repeatedly harp on the "major disruption" definition point, sorry.  However, the current version of the article is much more NPOV which was my original concern (I went about it poorly).  The article now states who is saying there were no major disruptions and indicates there are varying estimates for turnout figures among other points and the criticisms section (now renamed reaction section) also was put back.  Adam, what specific concerns do you have with the current version of the article?  zen master    T  13:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Adam, I have retracted nothing, to spell it out for you: I apologized for adressing my concerns with the article in a poor manner.  You still have not justified your removal of the original criticisms section.  Actually, my reverts are the ones vindicated now that the article contains a detailed reactions section and the intro has been massively cleaned up.  I think we need an expanded criticisms section, there are actually many sources available.  I will post them to the talk page first.  zen master    T  12:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Please point to edit history where I make any such claims inside the article?  Please recall that our revert war was over me *removing* the "no major disruption" sentence and trying to add the gorby quotation, at no time did I add such claims to the article stated as fact.  Also note that the rewritten intro has addressed my concerns, the article no longer states pro US everything is peachy keen in iraq propogranda as fact, and the gorby quotation was readded by someone else, so why are you still carrying on about my supposedly "ridiculous" claims?  That does not seem to make much since because you just stated that this version of the article is improved, so which is it?  If I hadn't made a big deal would the article still be worse off like it was previously?   zen master    T  18:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 	Poll about allowing criticism of the party-line in the article