Talk:History of Iraq

message: What does this mean?
 "At that time, Assyria riven by a series of bitter civil wars being fought for control of the kingdom after the death of its last great ruler, Ashurbanipal."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.108.222 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

message: Hi, I'm thinking to start moving some of the history content over from the Saddam Article as it's getting pretty big (as has been commented on a lot there) and this article is pretty small.  This seems to be agreeable to people there and to the commment below that this article needs more attention. - Pablo Mayrgundter 04:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: As this page ends with current events more attention needs to be paid to keeping up.  Also, new developments in the UN Oil-for-Food program need to be mentioned.  I don't feel up to major additions.
I just added a couple of things that are related to the Arab revolt. Since there was little about Churchill's role during this crucial event, I felt his name had to be cited concerning the alleged (I'm trying to be objective!:)) use of poison gas on civilians. here's my source.... http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/oct02/middleEast.asp
and don't tell me that the navy is some kind of commie organisation!! LOL
Regarding the meaning of the word, Iraq, there is obviously little agreement. In 2003 my interpreter, an intellectual Iraqi physician, told me that it refers to the color of the earth, which is blacker in the north than in the south. I think he was referring to "richer" soil, although I am not sure. At least in the uSA, we automatically assume dark, loamy soil is more fertile - I could be guilty of mirror-imaging culture. Nevertheless, he made defininte reference to the soil's color in this region, vs. more to the south.
Warner Anderson
I agree. This article stops in 2006 and can give the wrong impression that Iraq is caught up in a violent civil war. This does not reflect current conditions in the country. The article stops with events in 2006 and we are already more than half way done with 2009. An update would be highly recommended unless the point of the article is to present a non neutral political point of view. 
- Robert Canales  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.73.142 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs updating 

message: Here are a few possible examples of NPOV:
...resorting to aerial bombardment of Iraqi villages before control was established. These operations, in which it is alleged poison gas was used, were led by the future prime minister W.Churchill.
-Resorting to could be considered NPOV, and if the allegation is unsubstantiated, why mention it? "Resorting to" might be better removed.
The Kurds in the north, wavering between adherence to the new Turkish state of Kemal Atatürk and the newly created Iraqi state, were lured by a British promise of autonomy within Iraq, a promise that was broken as soon as their incorporation was a fact.
-Wavering implies they have no loyalties, also being lured, and broken promises by the British.
The British designated Iraq as a kingdom and placed the country under the rule of Emir Faisal ibn Husayn, leader of the so-called Arab Revolt against the Ottoman sultan...
-So-called is a very loaded phrase, indicating it did not deserve the title, a statement of quality. "Sometimes refered to as" might be a better description.
Chased by the French out of Syria, of which he had been proclaimed king,
-Deposed or exiled is less loaded.
Feisal obtained the throne of Iraq by the influence of T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) and Miss Getrude Bell, a romatically inclined English writer who lived in Baghdad, during a conference in Cairo, presided by the British minister of Colonial Affairs, Winston Churchill. Although the monarch was elected and proclaimed King by plebiscite in 1921, boycotted by the shi'ite majority, full independence was not achieved until 1932
-This implies that It was the work of only three people that brought Feisal to the monarchy. Also, why is the shi'ite protest mentioned?
Kurds had caused trouble earlier, insisting on their promised autonomy, and had never accepted the monarchy.
-Implication that the kurds "cause trouble."
Qassem backed down, and in October 1963, Iraq recognised the sovereignty and borders of Kuwait.
-A better way to describe it may be capitulated, but this may still be assigning a value to the action. Withdrew is also a possibility.
Barzani and the Kurds who had begun a rebellion in 1961 were still causing problems in 1969 and the government had to deal with it.
-Again, the kurds are described as causing trouble. Rebellion, insurrection and other political adjectives may be more acceptable.
 As a result, Iraq experienced fast economic growth and at the end of the 1970s it was possible for Iraqis on a teacher's salary, to take holidays in Europe.
-A strange description, implying opulence?
During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build an harbour in the Shatt al-Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that the conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears.
-"caused many problems" may be better written as "strained relations between." "didn't help alter Iraq's fears" seems to say that the blame should not be lain at Iraq's feet. "Increased tensions" could be better.
In retrospect, the 1970s can be seen as a highpoint in Iraq's modern history. A new, young, technocratic elite was governing the country, the fast growing economy brought stability and many Arabs outside Iraq considered it an example. However, the following decade would not be so good.
-The phrase "is considered by many" if there is evidence of such, can replace "can be seen." The next decade "not being so good" is also a judgement call.
During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build an harbour in the Shatt al-Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that the conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears.
-"caused many problems" may be better written as "strained relations between." "didn't help alter Iraq's fears" seems to say that the blame should not be lain at Iraq's feet. "Increased tensions" could be better.
but the action was internationally condemned as aggressive. However, in hind sight, following the Persian Gulf War this action might be viewed a prescient intervention, to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear military capability - a capability which would have most likely deterred the UN intervention in defence of Kuwait.
-Conjecture and accusations of Israel when no blame should be laid.
April Glaspie informed Saddam that the United States had no interest in Iraq/Kuwait border disputes.
-Again casting America in a negative light.
one hundred and forty thousand tons of munitions had showered down on the country, the equivalent of 7 Hiroshima bombs. Probably as many as 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians were killed.
-This does not mention American forces killed, and the exaggeration of the nuclear bombs could be a generalization made of most wars, if all munitions were added together.
Conference centres and shopping and residential areas were hit. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed in the attack on the Al-Amiriyah bomb shelter. Diseases spread through contaminated drinking water because water purification and sewage treatment facilities could not operate without electricity.
-Once more casting America as villian, when neither the reconstruction nor the possibility that such attacks were not intended to kill civilians.
According to UN estimates, a million children died during trade embargo, due to malnutrition or lack of medical supplies. 30% of the proceeds were redirected to a war reparations account.
-The destruction of children is implied as the result of the embargo only.
The Clinton administration judged an alleged attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush while in Kuwait to be worthy of a military response on 27 June 1993. The Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters in Baghdad was targeted by 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched from US warships in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Three missiles were declared to have missed the target, causing some collateral damage to nearby residential housing and eight civilian deaths.
-"Judged to be", "alleged" are both loaded terms, and the collateral damage is always reported as the result, with no report of the fate of the IIS headquarters.
In May 1995 Saddam sacked his half-brother, Wathban, as Interior Minister and in July demoted his notorious and powerful Defense Minister, Ali Hassan al-Majid
-"Notorius" gives a sense of menace, and "sacked" is a harsher, more judgemental word than the phrase "removed from office."
it seemed clear that Saddam felt more secure protected by his immediate family members.
-Is it possible to deign what Saddam felt? A quote would be more appropriate.
his Minister of Military Industries and a key henchman,
-"Henchman" a highly loaded term.
in order to pre-empt any revelations that the defector could make.
-Again presuming instead of reporting the facts.
The weakening of the internal position of the government occurred at a time when the external opposition forces were as weak as ever, too divided among themselves to take any effective action. At the same time, France and Russia pushed for an easing of sanctions. US determination to keep up the pressure on Iraq prevailed however.
-An implication that the United States was "stacking the deck."
--Devoidgod 30 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)
>>>>>> Britain ....... defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little regard for natural frontiers and traditional tribal and ethnic settlements. <<<<<<< 
Scrawl - Elsewhere the article says words to the effect "Modern day Iraq is almost exactly the same as Mesopotamia". (I don't know which of these statements is true).
>>>>>> The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. As a consequence, the new political system suffered a lack of legitimacy. Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq <<<<<<<<<<<<
Scrawl - The "new political system" worked rather well, surviving through 3 generations (+ a regency, making 3 successful handovers) over some 37 years. Monarchies are frequently invited in from outside (there's not been an English monarch since 1485). Although Kings can be subverted and made into puppets, they're resistant to it, far more so than republics. Also, I think Iraq sided with the Nazis, so the government (monarch?) was clearly not a foreign puppet.
>>>>> Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. <<<<<<
Scrawl - Britain's policies had never been in effect at this time! Why not say "Elements of the defeated Ottoman Empire, hung on in Iraq and strongly resisted the new mandate authorities for 2 years"?
>>>>>>>>> During the revolt Britain used gas and air attacks on Iraqi villagers. <<<<<<
Scrawl - I'm told there is no evidence for gas attacks by the British on Iraqi villages. The story arose because Churchill wrote in favour of it. It's been picked up by propagandists to incite hatred against the British.
Scrawl = 82.9.87.149 08:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue? 

message: From my history lesssons I know that the democratic governed and Comunist governed country tried to increase their influence. That was a kind of competition and every side tried to have countries in the middle orient, asia and south america on its side. The history of Iraq is of course not free of such influence too. To write some (true) aspects offence some people, to leave it out offence some other people. Some aspects take the leaders of their countries to the grave, so that everybody is able only to guess.  
For History you have to read between the lines and sometimes to combine in a way the author or other people may be disaggree. In some cases the founder of the states tried to set borders so that war is not necessary for basic needs. In this countries it that the water. The (non-salt) water reservoirs of Tuerkye and Iraq are in the middle. If there was a state between which had both parts, it would not take long till both sides occupation attempts. I remembered a remark of Ata Tuerk going into this direction. 
Second aspect was the increase of religious radicals in this region. The Schah had to leave Iran and Khomeni came. In 1945 when the Kurdish rebellion failed, one leading group fled to the Soviet Union. Of course they have kept in contact so that they were often seen as possible supporters of the Soviet Union. Others believed they are more religious fundamentalists. That could be a reason to be blind on (inhuman) attacks on them or supporting this by encouraging a leader of country to keep them down and further more to attack a fundamentalistic neighbour. You should know, that the winner in the end writes the history - a very old and true phrase. 
Now I will be going to a simple test if you are able to surpress your subjective opinion far enough to write about history - where facts are not so clear as in mathematics. 
If you think my additions are good and the history of Iraq should be changed exactly into that direction, then you will not be more objective than I am. 
If you think my additions are biased far away from neutrality (lies, or stronger words you will use), then you will not be more objective than I am. 
If you think my additions are interesting ideas and some actual facts could support or lead to this opinion of somebody although you do not aggree, then you will be able to surpress your subjective opinion enough to write about history topics. 
If you think my additions give for some historical events an explanation but often other reasons and facts are more decisible, although you aggree, then you will be able to surpress your subjective opinion enough to write about history topics.  
Please read from the beginning. 
In the end a good history article contains the opinon (represented in facts and interpretations, which they think (or better believe) is correct) of the majority (that`s democracy) without omitting the opinion (represented in facts and interpretations)of the majority of the opposition (that`s the little important difference of democracy to other forms of ruling a country). 
I read the article. I do not find the article has a strong tendency. The author has to select if he will not write a thick book. Not everybody aggrees with the selection, that`s democray. Good style would be to add more from the history of Iraq, not deleting parts (then you do selection too). I would do it if knew more from Iraq.     
Dieter --138.89.56.7 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with some of the people above -- this article does not strike me as particularly biased in any way. The Shi`i Revolt of 1920 and the comments made by April Gillespie can be found in any academic history of Iraq -- for example, see the works of Peter & Marion Sluglett, Phebe Marr, Yitzhak Nakash, and Toby Dodge. as far as the comments on the 2003 war, if people feel that these areas are not neutral, i suggest either just deleted the section and including a link to the main article on the subject or presenting all views on the war ... Dgl 13:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History has always subjective parts 

message: Trying to do some weeding in terms of the POV in this article, and I have removed a reference to the Kurds "wavering between Turkey and Iraq" after WWI. I couldn't really make sense of it (were they considering moving accross the border en masse or what?) and I don't think I would have been too impressed if I were Kurdish. However, I do think the Kurdish perspective at this time is a significant missing part of the article, so I thought I'd flag it up for anyone who is able to contribute something --Vjam 12:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the perspective of American soldiers in Iraq (who are mostly confined to their bases so living and working with Iraqis I find a bit hard to accept) is very usefull when writing an history of Iraq but if you have some points you want to discuss with us feel free. However general observations are not very helpfull so please be specific. Chardon 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you are someone who actually knows something that's not in the article, and it's not your own research but has an authoritative source to cite, then put it in.  "Support our soldiers" and "support our government" has nothing at all to do with writing a factual article.  Besides, since when do we have to support the wrongs of an evil faction within our government, and in what way does "supporting our government" have anything to do with supporting our troops?  You are talking about the same government that sent you to fight a war that wasn't declared, on a nation that posed no threat to us, a nation that the govt. knew did not have weapons of mass destruction, that had nothing to do with attacking the US... (Saddam was evil, sure, most of the puppet despots our government installs as dictators are evil.) The government that sent you to face gas attacks without enough functioning gas masks ?... the same government that forbids your mother to send you some body armor from home to replace the armor you didn't get issued?... the same government that says Gulf War syndrome doesn't exist?... the same government that has already allowed some of your returning brothers to be living in poverty and homeless on the street with missing limbs?  If you have something to add to the article that's not there, by all means put it in.  But don't lecture us about supporting 'our government', when by that government you mean a President who was installed by cronies after a questionable election, who lied about knowing 9/11 was coming, who started the war based on lies about WMD's... I support my troops by not sending them on a snipe hunt and not asking them to fight an endless war for a finite commodity.  68.183.79.162 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdish aspirations after Ottoman rule 

message: "The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north." 
Did the person who wrote this is aware of Britian's Divide and conquer stratergy? 
Britain knew very well what they were doing. Somebody please edit this line. Chaldean 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: They didn't know what they were doing?

message: Is there an accepted correct transliteration of Sodom Who's-sane's name, or are we just going to use any fonettyck spelling we choose?  Our main article is at Saddam Hussein, it seems we should use only that spelling and put alternate spellings in the Saddam Hussein article, but use a consistent spelling in this one as it is distracting to see is spelt different ways... comment? Pedant 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein/Saddam Hussain/Saddām Husayn/consistency? 

message: ::"In July 1979, Bakr resigned, and his successor, Saddam Hussein, assumed the offices of both President and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq for some years before he formally came to power."
I think a little bit more detail would be helpful in this paragraph.Pedant 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "''de facto'' ruler"..."came to power""

message: It's filled with POVs and factual errors, it'll be a tough job though.
Not only that, it's the idiot talk of armchair soldiers.  If you've ever seen what WP(Willie Peter) does to the human body, you'd feel deeply ashamed of this ego dialogue that's gone on so numbingly long.  WP is a chemical reaction that, if it gets on you, will burn clean through your body.  It is impossible to extinguish.  Labels won't change that.  Go back and pick up your soul.  You dropped it. ````
    There are only 3 categories of Chemical Weapons. Nerve, Blood, and Blister. WP does not fall into any of those categories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.60.45.6 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article so needs to be rewritten

message: I think there needs to be a discussion of the turbulence of Iraq/Mesopotamia during the Middle Ages
and prior to World War I. The Ottomans, Persians, Mongols, etc., found the Arab tribes practically impossible to control, and they held only limited control outside of Baghdad. 
History of Iraq
Americans are just the latest power to be stupid enough to try to control Iraq.--146.145.70.200 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab tribes in Iraq prior to European colonization

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.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:PD-Old regime Iraq}}]]

message: I think we should put more pictures in this article, and show a little more neutrality on the topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.73.113 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: Could someone take a look at the first sentence in this section? I don't know what it should say.
"The first organised leaders were me the new queen of Iraq conflict..."
Thank you!
Gingerwiki (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix needed in the "Arab conquest and early Islamic period" section 

message: The image of Saddam after his capture is very related to the subject and is the only picture for a quite lengthy description. Mashkin (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a legitimate opinion, but it is just yours. I have a different one and the image existed in the article, so it should stay here until the end of the discussion. Not clear why  even if it is "an instance of psychological warfare" it does not belong here. What image do you prefer? Mashkin (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the image showing the occupation zones. Izzedine (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Saddam after capture

message: Please could you explain this unexplained mass revert ? Izzedine 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab 

message: The time.com article says the cultural history of Iraq stretches back 10k years  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Iraq 

message: In the sentence "The Iraq Liberation Act, fully three years prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, codified regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government. It was passed 99-0 by the United States Senate", the reference to 9/11 seems odd and irrelevant at best, and an attempt to subtly link 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq at worst. So I've removed that part of the sentence. pomegranate (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq Liberation Act 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028003924/http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/meria-rubin-sanctions-1201.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/meria-rubin-sanctions-1201.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system.  This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India.  If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I see no reason to change per MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change dating system to Common Era