Talk:Iraq/Archive 5

Reverted alleged late November Palin comment

If someone is going to include something incendiary like Palin saying that Baghdad should have a nuke dropped on it, at least add a reference. The edit was reverted appropriately. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography of Iraq

It is perfectly proper to use "Mesopotamia" in the context of the geography of Iraq. As it happens, Iraq comprises part of the Zagros range (Iraqi Kurdistan), part of the Syrian desert (accounting for about half of the country's area) besides Upper Mesopotamia (Al-Jazira) and Lower Mesopotamia (the Mesopotamian marshes). Between Upper and Lower Mesopotamia is the densely populated Baghdad area. Mesopotamia is thus a relevant geographic term when discussing Iraq, and of course most of the population is concentrated there, but in terms of area it accounts for less than half the country. Claiming that Iraq "is" Mesopotamia is like claiming that Egypt "is" the Nile Valley. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is personal opinion. Izzedine 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is common sense. As Dbachmann correctly points out, "Mesopotamia" is a geographical term; "Iraq" is the name of the current country, which covers both land beyond Mesopotamia & most of Mesopotamia. (A small part of northernmost Mesopotamia, if we observe the precise definition of the term, is in Turkey.) This is the same situation one faces when writing about Sudan, the country in eastern Africa, & the Sudan, the savanna south of the Sahara which was known for its gold fields: Sudan the country covers only a portion of the Sudan, while incorporating areas beyond the Sudan -- parts of the Sahara at the northern end & the swamps of the Sudd at the southern end. Attempting to make the Sudan the exact equivalent of the country of the Sudan ignores a subtle but important difference in the same way making Mesopotamia the exact equivalent of Iraq the country. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A postscript: Dbachmann's words above are a paraphrase of this source, which has been used to argue that Iraq == Mesopotamia. Read the context of the phrase "Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia", & you will see for yourself. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

as I said, a non-issue. There is really nothing to see here. The pov-pushers are content just with their google hit, they cannot be bothered to read the sentence even right next to their search string. This isn't what we are doing on Wikipedia, and I am really wondering why this is still being discussed. This is either bad faith or complete incompetence, and either way we don't need to bother with it. I would have blocked Izzedine several times over if I had not also reverted his edits. That the account is crying for a block is painfully obvious to me, and I really think an uninvolved admin should do the honours. --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

as a further postscript, "Mesopotamia" was a political term besides its nature as a geographic one, for the twelve years between 1920 and 1932, viz. the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, with borders identical to those of the current Republic. Any statements the effect that "Iraq was formerly known as Mesopotamia" concern the decolonization process, i.e. the formation of the Kingdom of Iraq in 1932. In this specific context, it is certainly correct to state that "Iraq was formerly known as Mesopotamia", but it needs to be made clear that the context is the interbellum (post-WWI) period. --dab (𒁳) 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraq - the new destination for daring tourists

This Israeli site: [JP] writes that Iraq is the new destination for daring tourists.Agre22 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

there was an article Tourism in Iraq which was speedy-deleted last May because it had no referenced content. You may want to recreate that article with your reference. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraq, "also known as Mesopotamia"

The current lead sentence of the article begins with "Iraq, also known as Mesopotamia, is a country..." This is ridiculous on the face of it. This article is about the country of Iraq. The country of Iraq is NOT also known as Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia extends well beyond the boundaries of modern Iraq. The state of Iraq, whose borders were drawn by the British in the 20th century, just happens to occupy to a large extent the same area. Yet someone reading this article might think that the country of Iraq itself is sometimes referred to as Mesopotamia. This is (deliberately?) misleading and needs to change. --Athenean (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• The citation is verbatim, and Iraq is indeed often referred to as Mesopotamia, in newspapers as well as in books, and other contexts. Izzedine 02:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mesopotamia means land of Two rivers, and Iraq IS a land of two Rivers, end of discussion. happy Holidays. Mussav (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. Iraq is not "also known as" Mesopotamia. Never has been. Mesopotamia is a term of antiquity. Iraq is a term of the modern world. Izzedine, you have been warned repeatedly to quit this nationalistic crusade of yours to link Iraq to anything and everything. (Taivo (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Sorry to disappoint you, you are wrong, Iraq is and still called Mesopotamia. Let me get things clear, Mesopotamia is a Greek name, we Arab use the term (بلاد الرافدين) Bilad Al-Rafidain (Land of two Rivers) which means in English Dict. "Mesopotamia", and yes people are still call Iraq with the name (Mesopotamia) Bilad Al-Rafidain, you can check it yourself. Mussav (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so it doesn't matter a hill of beans what they call Iraq in Arabic. In English, the country of Iraq is never called "Mesopotamia". (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Uh, for anyone to take this claim seriously, don't we need a reliable source which states that English speakers use this term? And while it may be germane that the Arabic term for Iraq is "Bilad al-Rafidain" -- if a reliable source verifies that this is a fact -- yet that is no more interchangeable with "Mesopotamia" than "Albion" & "Great Britain" are interchangeable. One is the historic name for the region, the other is the contemporary name. But in any case, we need some reliable sources for this assertion, or else it may result with people getting sanctioned for tendentious editting. -- llywrch (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is reliably cited verbatim. There is no problem here. Izzedine 21:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mesopotamia is a term that is still used in modern times. Take the Mesopotamian campaign in WWI for example. However, this is a situation that is already solved by Wikipedia policy. Refer to WP:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

The content is properly sourced, so there shouldn't be a problem.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• When I hear Iraq, I always remember my old history lessons: "Mesoptomia, which is today's Iraq"

And if somebody says Mesopotamia, I assume that he means Iraq. I am for this beginning: "Iraq, also known as Mesopotamia, is a country..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.211.113 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment This IP editor appeared today, and only has one contribution here and in the similar debate at Talk:Mesopotamia. Mighty suspicious. --Athenean (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No one calls modern Iraq "Mesopotamia" in contemporary English. The only quotes are not referring to the modern country, but to the ancient region. (Taivo (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Reliable published references:

• "Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia"
• "Another name for Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "A better-known name for Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is also known as the 'birthplace of civilisation' or Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is Mesopotamia"
• "Iraq is Mesopotamia for Christ's sake" Izzedine 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Of these links, one yields "no results", so it's clear that you, again, are being totally random about your "searches". Of all the others, they are in the context of ancient history and antiquities. That shows that "Mesopotamia" only refers to the ancient region of Iraq and not to the contemporary country. Try actually reading and evaluating your sources before you just dump them here. (Taivo (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

Stop the ad hominems. The daily harrassment from you is causing me grief, and I have tolerated it for long enough. Whatever you might think, there are 10 reliable references which verify this. Izzedine 03:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• • 1. 1 is a source on ancient history, not the modern country.
    2. 2 has nothing to do with Iraq or Mesopotamia, it is an off-topic source (Greater Cleveland social science program).
    3. 3 is a local newspaper.
    4. 4 doesn't say anything about Iraq being Mesopotamia, it is moreover "A tourist guide to the Arab world By Arab Tourist Union" from 1970.
    5. 5 is a novel.
    6. 6 doesn't equate Iraq with Mesopotamia even remotely, it is moreover wholly concerned with antiquity.
    7. 7 page doesn' exist.
    8. 8 is a blog.
    9. 9 I'll let that one speaks for itself.

Blogs? Novels? Tourist guide? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. There are no source given to prove that English speakers refer to the modern-day country of Iraq as Mesopotamia. Which I had guessed before going over these "sources", because no one refers to the state of Iraq as "Mesopotamia". I've never heard of the Mesopotamian Ministry of the Interior, the Mesopotamian army, or the Mesopotamian National Soccer Team, or any such nonsense. --Athenean (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Other people can check these references and form their own opinion. If anyone else is getting a broken link for any of them, just mention and I'll try and correct it, but the links all work for me. Izzedine 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine, you just don't understand what an "alternate name" actually consists of. If "Mesopotamia" were actually a synonym of modern Iraq, then you would find sources that only used "Mesopotamia" when referring to the modern country (not the ancient region). That's an "alternate name", not just a quote that says "Iraq is ancient Mesopotamia". An "alternate name" is one that can be used instead of. Show me a reliable source that uses "Mesopotamia" throughout its text as a reference to the modern country. (Taivo (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

The wording is "Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia", and this is verified. Izzedine 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you still don't understand what an "alternate name" is. An alternate name is a name that can be substituted for the primary name. For example, "Republic of Iraq" can substitute for "Iraq", so it's an alternate name. You can find hundreds of examples where that is done. "Burma" is a valid alternate name for "Myanmar" (or vice versa) because you can find hundreds of documents that use one or the other exclusively. You cannot find any reliable sources that substitute "Mesopotamia" for modern Iraq. They all either use "Iraq" or "Republic of Iraq". No book uses "Mesopotamia" for the modern country instead of Iraq. You have odds and ends that make a comment about how ancient Iraq was known as "Mesopotamia", but no examples of "Mesopotamia" actually being used as an alternate term for modern "Iraq". (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

According to the citation, Taivo, "Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia". Quite the opposite of what you're saying. The statement is verifiable, therefore it is perfectly valid to include it in the article -- what you or I think is true holds no weight. Nothing in the given source implies that it's only talking about a historical sense, it says "is known as", not "was known as", therefore, it can't be considered synthesis. If you want an example of "Mesopotamian" being used in modern context, again, look at Mesopotamian campaign. However if that doesn't satiate you, I don't know what else to tell you. Verifiable information simply stays. (wp:verifiability) I really do understand your point, but edit warring is not acceptable. Reach a solution on the talk page (but take some advice, "claiming" alone will probably not bring about that solution).--Stinging Swarm ^talk 08:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to produce a single source in English that uses the term "Mesopotamia" for modern Iraq instead of "Iraq". (Taivo (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

The article says "also known as Mesopotamia". This statement is sourced. The given source says "Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia." It can't be much more to the point than that. I have no reason to look for any more sources. According to wikipedia policy, the statement can be included. Yet you continue to dispute it and demand better sources, while you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence whatsoever to support your claim. You've pushed your argument as far as it can go without backing it up. This is an encyclopedia, not an internet forum. What you say cannot be simply taken as fact. You're disputing the factual accuracy of a statement that can be verified by a reliable source. You simply have to support such a claim yourself, instead of insisting that others are wrong. Like I said, claiming alone won't resolve the dispute. As far as I'm concerned Taivo, as of right now: the disputation carries no weight since the content is referenced by a reliable source, no one has brought any evidence or reliable source to suggest that the existing verifiable statement is wrong, and there is no consensus to support such a conclusion. Stinging Swarm ^talk 10:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly going nowhere. I will thus file an RfC request, to get community input on this. --Athenean (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

make it a user RfC -- this is about a single user holding hostage ten good editors with a non-issue. There is nothing to see here in terms of content. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Stinging Swarm, I am prepared to AGF on your part, but are you a shell script or something? These people went to google books because they wanted to find evidence of their random claim that Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia. So they google their claim and lo and behold they get two hits, one in a dental journal of 1929, and one in a sociological study of Iraq of 1971. Then they decide that perhaps the 1971 study is more relevant than the 1929 dental journal and they "reference" the soundbite to that google hit, cited completely out of context. Have you ever considered WP:DUE and WP:LEAD, and the possibility that you can "reference" anything at all if you are allowed to use random soundbites you found on google books? Please try to remember that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use--dab (𒁳) 10:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here to fix a few mistakes within the article, having nothing to do with this issue. Not long after, an edit war erupts over this small issue. An edit war! I only attempted to halt the edit war with a common sense reference to policy. Have you ever considered that in the case of an edit war, the verifiable statement should be given short term preference to the claim that it should be removed, when the person making the claim doesn't even try to support themselves? I told Taivo that they need to come up with something better than to incessantly claim the sourced statement is wrong. I reviewed my comments, and nothing I said is untrue. Are you sure you read the same reference I did? I'm pretty sure context was not that important in this particular instance. It seemed pretty straight forward. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that if everyone could dispute and removed sourced material based on their claim of the truth (exactly the opposite of wp:verifiability's purpose), there would constantly be petty edit wars over minor content disputes? That may cause a little too much disruption to the encyclopedia just because someone doesn't like the "random" book used to cite the statement.
I do, on another note, appreciate you patronizing me with "I am prepared to AGF on your part" before attempting to tear me down-- that courtesy statement completely voided any air of incivility that could have been detected in your comment. Also, when you said "this is about a single user holding hostage ten good editors with a non-issue", who is the user you're referring to? Surely you noticed the multiple users on each side of the debate. --Stinging Swarm^talk 11:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In hindsight, it is apparent that I had a completely different motive than Izzedine. My view of the situation was limited to this debate, which I viewed as a minor content dispute and nothing more. I was not aware of the context of Izzedine's actions' the extent and history of his disruption on Wikipedia, and yes, I realize I looked like an complete fool, taking the side of the disruptive, POV pushing Iraqi nationalist. In conclusion, oops!--Stinging Swarm ^talk 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Stinging Swarm, we've all done it at one time or another. Our thanks to you for discovering Izzedine's call for meat puppets. We had all privately suspected that he was stirring the nationalists outside Wikipedia, but you found the evidence. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks, Taivo. Swarm^Talk 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(dab) Please avoid attacking people's motives, and overlooking these published references:

1. "Iraq is also known as Mesopotamia"

2. "Another name for Iraq is Mesopotamia"

3. "A better-known name for Iraq is Mesopotamia"

4. "Iraq is also known as the 'birthplace of civilisation' or Mesopotamia"

5. "Iraq is Mesopotamia"

6. "Iraq is Mesopotamia"

7. "Iraq is Mesopotamia"

8. "Iraq is Mesopotamia"

9. "Iraq is Mesopotamia for Christ's sake" Izzedine 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So according to Taivo, this article is limited to post-1958 "Republic of Iraq", and only references for "Republic of Iraq" can be included, and any references for "Iraq" (even ones published post-1958) are all irrelevant, simply because according to him, "they are not talking about the "modern" Iraq" as he calls it... some, hyper-compartmentalized version, completely divorced from it's history, born out of thin air in 1958. Izzedine 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something else to consider: when in 1918 the British overprinted Ottoman stamps for use in the region they used the words "Iraq in British Occupation" - so although "Mesopotamia" might have been a word commonly used for Iraq, its official name was Iraq even before the borders of what is now Iraq were fixed. Meowy 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If it can be referenced, I honestly see no reason not to include it. I don't understand the vehement opposition to its addition. Even if you never would call Iraq "Mesopotamia", that doesn't mean it's never called Mesopotamia.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"This press release uses the term", "This article uses the term", "This book", a source already given, blatantly says that "Iraq" is also known as "Mesopotamia". The surrounding context is apparently geographical, but that statement isn't. The WWI campaign in Iraq was known the Mesopotamian campaign, and when the League of Nations placed Iraq under British control, it was known as the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. Some of the other sources Izzedine listed are reliable as well. I think that warrants at least a "sometimes known as".--Stinging Swarm ^talk 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no way in English that the sentence, "assistance to the Government of Iraq in rehabilitating the marshlands of Mesopotamia" means that the two are identical. "Marshlands of Mesopotamia" only refers to a small geographical region inside Iraq and not to Iraq itself. It's just like saying "assistance to the Government of the U.S. in rehabilitating the marshlands of Louisiana". "Louisiana" in this sentence does not equal "United States". It's been shown fairly conclusively that Izzedine's references are bogus and that in no modern context does "Mesopotamia" equal "Iraq". (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

That was merely a fraction of my above comments. Anyway, if not in the lead, the article should still be edited to specify the modern usage of the term "Mesopotamia". The term "Mesopotamia" has clearly been used in a political sense for the state of Iraq many times, yet on Wikipedia it is generally only explained in a geographic sense. A somewhat similar situation is explained in the lead for Iran: "Iran(...)officially the Islamic Republic of Iran is a country in Western Asia. The name Iran has been in use natively and came into international use from 1935, before which the country was known internationally as Persia.

Surely something similar can be said in Iraq. I understand this is a POV crusade, but while we're on the topic, such a change probably would be possible without applying undue weight. This is an idea I had while considering the usage of the term "Mesopotamia" and not an agreement with Izzedine's argument.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Second reference: "Al-Quaeda in Iraq, aka Al-Quaeda in Mesopotamia" is not an English usage (the article never again mentions "Mesopotamia"), but simply a literal translation of the name in Arabic. That doesn't count as English usage--end of your second "reference". Rejected. Third reference: This line has already been discussed and rejected. If the context is clearly geographical, you cannot just claim that for one sentence the context shifts from geographical to political. Rejected. Last comment: That is not modern English usage. An isolated usage from 100 years ago isn't really modern, contemporary English. Rejected. I'm not going to comment anymore because I already walk the thin line of WP:RANDY. DBachmann has been very clear that adding "Mesopotamia" is minor, POV pushing, and unsourced. Nothing that you've added, Stinging Swarm, changes my mind about that. (Taivo (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

So the British Mandate of Mesopotamia or the Mesopotamian campaign are not noteworthy enough to include the term "Mesopotamia" in the article of Iraq?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That can be appropriately incorporated into the History section, but it certainly doesn't warrant "Iraq also known as Mesopotamia" right in the very first sentence of the lead. --Athenean (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And that's all I was suggesting.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 06:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

History sections need to be made less U.S.-centric

The "Persian Gulf War" and "Disarmament Crisis" sections on Iraq's history are incredibly U.S.-centric, and the "post-invasion" section isn't great either. These first two sections essentially mention only military conflicts with the U.S., conflicts with the UN and U.S. over WMDs, and some brief mentions of humanitarian abuses by the regime. This is essentially a U.S. military history of modern Iraq. Surely, other stuff has happened there over the past 20 years: domestic political struggles between rival factions, both before and after 2003? domestic policy decisions? cultural/religious shifts and developments? I'm certainly no Iraq expert, or else I would do this myself; can someone with more expertise please work on improving this?? CircleAdrian (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Prior constitution

How about some more informtion regarding the goverment under Saddam, I know he was an asshole but I believe that the goverment under the Bath party was secular, is that correct? I say it because I read that Iraq is now an Islamic State. --98.212.30.23 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference 53/54

These two references now give a bad link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Can I suggest the following minor amendment to improve the readability of one sentence

another maintains according to Professor Wilhelm Eilers, "The name al-‘Irāq, for all its Arabic appearance, is derived from Middle Persian erāq lowlands".[9]

should be changed to:

According to Professor Wilhelm Eilers, however, "The name al-‘Irāq, for all its Arabic appearance, is derived from Middle Persian erāq lowlands".[9]

Pmbeck (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

marwah farouk

i love love love IRAQ this my life and my country too.>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.142.99 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian translation

I have added another Assyrian translation, however the translation I added has voweling for inexperienced Aramaic readers

sincerely -Assyrio —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC).

Elections on March 7th, 2010

... were accompanied by terroristic attacks.

Already in the first hours of the opening of the elections in serveral cities nearby the polling stations exploded bombs and hit grenades.

The Ministery of the Interior informed about the killing of 38 persons and hurting of 110 by these attacks.

Two houses collapsed in Bagdad after explosions (in the districts Ur and Schurta al-Rabia killing 12 respectively 4 persons in). The "Green Zone" and other districts of Bagdad were hit by more than 60 grenades.

Some polling stations were closed after the attacks. People frquented the stations less after the attacks.

The polling commission critized deficient protection of the voters.

Sunnites priests and politicians promoted the poll. Car traffic partially has been forbidden an Saturday and the day of the poll, Sunday.

SITE (a company in Washington, DC watching Islamic websites) informed that the Al-Kaida branch in Iraq warned electors to attemd the poll, declared a curfew for Sunday.

Source: [1] (Austrian public radio-station, in German). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.248.72.43 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

marwah farouk

i love love love IRAQ this my life and my country too.i will kill everyone talk about IRAQ>>> ok

^^LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.210.5.253 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

image removal

Another editor ( this computr lacks the font set to read user name) removed images here. I reverted once. They reverted me back. Should these images be in this article or should they remain out? Please opine here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be included. --Kyknos (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for macabre pictures to be included. and there are plenty of pictures as it is. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the guy who has squiggles for a name. The photos may be relevant for an article about those specific events, but this is an overview article on the modern country of Iraq, not for titillation. (Taivo (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Improving discussion of factors leading to 2003 invasion

The bolded portion of the following quote is vague:

"The Bush administration made a number of allegations against Iraq, including that Iraq...had secret weapons laboratories in trailers and isolated facilities throughout Iraq;[citation needed] none of these allegations have proven true."

Whether "allegations" refers to all allegations by the Bush administration or just the examples given is unclear. If it refers to all allegations, then it is false, since:

"The battle led to...the uncovering of a chemical weapons facility at Sargat."

It is more accurate to state that "The extent of weapons facilities proven to exist in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion was not as great as publicly feared by the Bush Administration."

Also, any discussion of the invasion is incomplete without a reference to the events of 9/11/01, which polarized American opinion against those perceived to be sympathetic to terrorists, such as Saddam Hussein (see Deroy Murdock, Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror (Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, adapted from a September 22, 2004 presentation), last updated January 4, 2006).

Please add Iraq

Iraq is missing from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_colors_of_national_flags

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk • contribs) 23:31, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

What was the population of Iraq during the 1940s?

Roughly, how many people lived in Iraq during that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.163.24 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

http://esa.un.org/UNPP/p2k0data.asp

Based on this, I'd say about 4-5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.224.208 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Romans annexed Iraq?

There is a problem with this sentence in the first subsection of the History section of this article:

A Central Asian tribe of ancient Iranian peoples known as the Parthians later annexed the region, followed by the Romans, then the Sassanid Persians.

Did the Romans officially annex Iraq, or rather, Mesopotamian? I think so . The invasions by the Roman emperors Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, and Caracalla amounted to very brief and fleeting moments of Roman control, with Parthian authority established soon after in each case. Indeed, when Trajan invaded, he explicitly did not annex Iraq, but instead tried to install a loyal client ruler, i.e. Parthamaspates of Parthia, who was quickly overthrown by the Parthians because they considered him a turncoat, not a legitimate ruler. The Romans also pillaged and burned the Parthian capital Ctesiphon to the ground on more than one occasion before withdrawing, which is certainly not the act of those intending to stay. This sentence is also misleading in another way, since it asserts the Sassanids "annexed" the region after the Romans. When the Sassanids under Ardashir I conquered Iran, Artabanus IV of Parthia was the defender of this region, not the Romans! In fact, the easternmost settlement the Romans were able to capture from Parthia and maintain for any significant amount of time was Dura-Europos, taken during the invasion of Avidius Cassius in 164 ADd and never returned to Parthian hands. There's just one problem: Dura-Europos is in eastern Syria, not Iraq. This sentence certainly needs some reworking; the Roman invasions should certainly be mentioned, but annexation is a fantasy inserted by someone who is unfamiliar with historical subjects.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to anyone who asserts otherwise, I would suggest reading Bivar, A.D.H. (1983). "The Political History of Iran Under the Arsacids," in The Cambridge History of Iran (Vol 3:1), 21-99. Edited by Ehsan Yarshater. London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, since no one else seems to object or care about this issue, I'll be bold and take care of it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that the creation of a Roman province in central Iraq is actually debatable, although derived from the scanty amount of later (4th century) sources on Trajan's invasion. Look to C.S. Lightfoot's article "Trajan's Parthian War and the Fourth Century Perspective," (1990: 121-123). Trajan may or may not have established an Assyria province; there's just not enough evidence to say with much certainty either way.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? 12.86.230.202 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Photoshopped pictures?

Could we replace those two obviously processed pictures with something a little less absurd looking? Amber388 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

-agreed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.251.237 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify which pictures? Looking at the page now, I don't see any obviously processed shots (a la HDR, etc).And perhaps you could suggest new pictures with appropriate content licenses to replace them. Flickr creative commons might be a good place to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No longer cradle of civilization?

In light of the archaeological discoveries at Göbekli Tepe perhaps the phrase "cradle of civilization" should no longer be applied to this region? Historian932 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange Ghost lines?

For some reason the line "Landmine. be careful in Iraq you may step on a land mine or be attacked by 8 year olds" pops up in the British Colonisation section but doesnt show up in the Edit.

---

11/30/2010 3:02PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.152.243.237 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Demography, Religion and Ethnicity

There is something wrong in this article, not all Christians are Assyrian, Chaldean or Syrians. They may be in religion but not necessarily in the ethnicity.My family is the city of Mosul, go to Chaldean Church to attend but are not Assyrian or Chaldean ethnicity. There are many ethnic Arabs who are Christian or no religion. Therefore it is necessary to make this correction, for example my family can trace our ascedência the various Christian tribes who came from Arabia. I am in fact an Arab who is Christian.Generally Christians living in cities for many years and do not speak Aramaic are the Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.242.166 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article full of politician and war

Why is the article full of only war and politician, there is little about things like climate, economy, sport, education, food, health, transportations, etc. Don't put any more about politicians and war here, there are separate page for each one. Thank you!!! Sherzad (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

citation 86 (regarding number of oil wells in iraq and texas) - the reference is a table of electricity imports to us from canada and mexico and contains no obvious reference to oil, iraq or even texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.28.198 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it just me, or is the audio clip for the pronunciation skipping the preceding sound of the "I"? It comes across as just "rock" for me, from several computers no less. The second audio clip sounds correct however. 66.87.8.173 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.251.128.75, 17 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} 2011 Iraq Protests

On February 11 hundreds of lawyers marched in the streets of Baghdad, Karbala, Kut, Ramadi and Amara to protest corruption and unemployment, and call for open scrutiny of secret prisons and access to legal advice for prisoners. On the 10th, an anti corruption official had made a statement saying that ministerial coverup of corruption was frequent. Around 500 people marched in Baghdad that day. Media representatives had already marched in protest against high usage fees.

In an Al Jazeera video on February 9 a government official states, "We know the suffering of the citizens. But we cannot deal with that by a decree. Electricity cannot come back by a ruling from the minister's cabinet saying tomorrow electricity should be running 24 hours a day." However, the government did just that on Saturday the 12th, promising Iraqi citizens their first 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity each month free of charge, courtesy of the Ministry of Electricity. In October the government had doubled the price of electicity. The government has promised to increase power imports from Iran and they are also talking with Syria and Turkey and planning to improve their own electrical output.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has agreed to cut his $360,000 annual salary in half to help "reduce the gap in the living standards for the different classes. ... High salaries may create unrest in society and lead to the creation of two classes, the rich and the disadvantaged.” Maliki has also ordered that all Iraqis would receive cash handouts of almost $13 each and promised he would not run for a third term in 2014.

Some protesters say they want a new government and some don't. The Digital Journal has a very good article today titled "What the Iraq war logs have revealed", which provides a brief summary of what was the Iraqi people have recently been through. A reminder of the extra hardships they are going through now, not just unemployed with no electricity or clean water, but permanent occupation, nation wide post traumatic stress, care giving to unprecedented amounts of children with birth defects and wounded adults, and dead and missing family members have all created a society where an elected government is not going to cure all ills.

http://wlcentral.org/node/1293 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHu6C540nnU&feature=player_embedded http://www.rferl.org/content/kut_protests/2312020.html 70.251.128.75 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Could you please rewrite the section so it doesn't include direct copy/paste from the sources you provided? Also, the last paragraph has point of view issues and is not really on-topic in regards to the protests. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Arabic name

The official Arabic name for the Republic of Iraq is جمهورية العراق which can be transliterated as Jumhuriyat Al-'Iraq. I have corrected this and removed the audio file since it uses the incorrect الجمهورية العراقية Al jumhuriya Al Iraqiya. --Rafy talk 15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Iraq 50 dinars Rewers.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Iraq 50 dinars Rewers.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rajavi Quote

I think it is important to quote Rajavi completely: "Take the Kurds under your tanks and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.57.210.198 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the republic of Iraq. Internal Iranian-Kurdish struggle is not of importance.--Rafy talk 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Population

The Populatin of Iraq was 32.847.000 in 2011, look at the source thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JapanerRusse (talk • contribs) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook states 30 million as of July 2011.--Rafy talk 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad English usage

I know that corporate gobbledygook is often used in publications like this. But this article is especially disturbing. The overuse of the passive voice gives the impression that historical events happen in a vacuum, without any cause. Please, friends, try to use language that is direct and forthright and clear. Be brave! Use the active voice! Show who is responsible for these events! Bdubay (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Parthians and Sassanids are iranian empires not indigenous iraqi ones!

"Iraq was the center of the indigenous Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, Parthian, Sassanid, and Abbasid empires"

Parthians and Sassanids are Iranian dynasties not Iraqi "indigenous" ones.... change that in the wikipedia "iraq" article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.255.34.2 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Rafy talk 15:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously inappropriate/unsupported statement

Under politics, this sentence appears without citation, "Most politicians try to steal as much money as they can while they are in power, forcing Iraqi displaced persons and refugees to turn to prostitution". I don't think I need to make my case as to why this should be removed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slappydooda (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Rafy talk 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual Errors

The preponderance of what has been stated here appears to be correct however Mesopotamia has also been a part of modern day Kuwait, I’m a little suspicious on why that has not been included. Many of the kingdoms of ancient Iraq have historically been part of Kuwait.

Also, Mesopotamia is not the “Cradle of Civilization” it’s the birth place of civilization and saying things like the birth place of “Western Civilization” started in Greece is not going to alter that fact, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narocross (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In order to remain factual concerning civilian casualties, you need to state that the estimate from the Iraq Body Count project is '100,000', not just that it was 'significantly less'. There is a huge difference between 1 million civilian casualties and 100,000 civilian casualties. To only state one million implies a reluctance to state both numbers- also implies a certain amount of deviousness or a desire to manipulate opinion. Further, the use of civilian shields by Saddam's forces must also be included in this discussion. Also, there is the appearance of biase in this portion of the article. It almost seems to 'want' to prove a larger number by including the quote from Iraq Body Count Project's website. For credibility's sake, Wikipedia must be scathingly neutral. (susanshannon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanshannon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the claim by ORB survey of Iraq War casualties. Feel free to modify what you think is non-credible or non-neutral in this article.--Rafy talk 12:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

'US-led Invasion' is also politically charged language. Most of this section of the article is not neutral. It states opinions as facts- example: only weak evidence was found for weapons of mass destruction. This is factually incorrect. French, British, Russian & German intelligence agencies agreed that biological agents were still being manufactured and stored in Iraq. Russian intelligence also stated that Saddam planned an imminent threat to US interests (this is found in Wikipedia in another article). This article should include that Saddam Hussein, himself, claimed to have a nuclear weapons program. Many intelligence agencies estimated that Saddam not only had a nuclear program, but that he was within two months of producing a warhead. This information should be included. It was also theorized that Saddam Hussein used the six months of UN-American arguments to move the weapons by train to Syria. This theory should also be included. This section would more correctly be called Iraq War II.The title 'Occupation' is mileading and should be re-labled appropriately. Much of the information under this text (such as the hanging of Saddam Hussein) does not seem to correlate to the issue or claim of Occupation. Further, the name 'Occupation' is technically incorrect. The Iraqis requested that U.S troops remain to support the government. The presence of U.S. troops was not forced upon the government as is implied by 'occupation'. "Post Iraqi War II" would be more correct and more nuetral.

There is no discussion about the new Iraqi constitution, the free elections held (and still being held) to allow the Iraqi people choose not only their political representatives, but the actual form of their government and the contents of their constitution. More information should be included on the structure of their political representation, women's new-found rights, freedom of speech, etc.

There should be more information concerning the money the United States spent on the war, how much the United States forgave in war debt. There should be information on how much money the American public gave via charities to the improvement of the life.

This article only states the negatives of the Iraq war, but none of the positive results (implying a democratic, progressive or politically liberal bent). In order to maintain credibility, Wikipedia must ensure a neutral tone- it must state all the facts possible in a balanced fashion. If it doesn't, it will only ever be a 'yellow' opinion piece. I like Wikipedia and have used it extensively, but when I see this kind of biased writing allowed, I shake my head. p.s. other articles on the Iraq war are much better and more comprehensive and professional. You should ensure good editing (with the goal of representing as many facts as possible) before anyone can 'post' their article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanshannon (talk • contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The section looks fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

US-led invasion

Could you please replace with 'US-led Removal of Saddam Hussein' ? Patrickfmuller (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

       Why in the world would they do that? It was an invasion. A justified one, in my opinion, but it was an invasion none the less.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 

Demographics

My following edit has just been reverted so I have brought it here so that it can be discussed:

"According to the 1957 Iraqi census, which is recognized as the last reliable census, as later censuses were reflections of the Arabization policies of the Ba’th regime, Arabs formed the largest ethnicity followed by Kurds (13%) and Iraqi Turkmen (9%). Subsequent censuses, in 1967, 1977, 1987 and 1997, are all considered highly unreliable, due to suspicions of regime manipulation.

An April 2009 estimate of the total Iraqi population is 31,234,000. Iraq's population was estimated at only 2 million in 1878.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq's population is made up of 75%-80% Arabs, 15%-20% Kurds, and 5% Turkoman, Assyrian, or other. However, the population of the Turkish speaking Iraqi Turkmens is of heated debate; the figure mostly referred to by Kurdish groups and Western scholars is that Iraqi Turkmen make up 2-3% of the Iraqi population, or approximately 500,000-800,000; however, not all Western scholars accept this view, for example, Scott Taylor suggested that the Iraqi Turkmen accounted for 2,080,000 of Iraq's 25 million inhabitants in 2004 whilst Patrick Clawson has stated that the Iraqi Turkmen make up about 9% of the total population. Furthermore, international organizations such as the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization has stated that the Iraqi Turkmen community is 3 million or 13% of the Iraqi population."

I believe that it is important that it is mentioned that the Iraqi census' are highly regarded as unreliable, as well as the ethnic make-up of the population. For example, there is a lot of academics which state that there is a debate regarding the Iraqi Turkmen population. Kurdish groups place it at 2-3% (as do some Western scholars) whereas Iraqi Turkmen place it at 9% + (as do some Western scholars). Personally, I do not know the "real" number, however, we must acknowledge this dispute within the article.Turco85 (Talk) 14:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

---

1. According to [2] "Both Turkey and Turkmen organizations have often claimed that they number more than 2 million—around 7.5 percent of the total population of Iraq [1]—and perhaps up to 3 million, or approximately 11 percent of the total [2]. However, most Western sources put the figure considerably lower at 2-3 percent of the population of Iraq, or 500,000-800,000."
2. The claim that Turkmen formed 800,000 is highly unreliable. Especially when we know that they formed 80,000 in Kirkuk in 1957[3] (note that the province included areas such as Kifri and Tuz Khormato and Kalar where the Turkmen formed a substantial percentage).
3. What makes the UNPO reliable? Articles there are published by its members, Iraqi National Turkmen Party in the case of the Turkmen.--Rafy talk 14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rafy, as I have already said, I do not know the population of Iraqi Turkmen in Iraq. The point is that there is a genuine dispute regarding their population and there is academics who acknowledge this. It is not about what you or I think, it's about facts (if that make sense). The point is that we should be objective here, we need to show both sides of the spectrum. Turco85 (Talk) 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you show me sources stateing what is "highly unreliable". Your views are not reliable enough to judge what is right or wrong...we should only be discussing the issue with sources and not our own point of view.Turco85 (Talk) 15:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As for your comment about Iraqi Turkmen making up 80,000 in Kirkuk in 1957... you seem to be forgetting that the total population of Iraq at the time was 6.3 million (which means that Iraqi Turkmens living in Kirkuk alone made up or 1.26% of Iraq's total population) whereas today the Iraqi population is 30 million. So if we were to take your comment on board, Iraqi Turkmen would make up about 378,000 in Kirkuk alone today. Turco85 (Talk) 15:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

300,000-400,000 in greater kirkuk (see Disputed territories of Iraq) plus some 200-300 thousands elsewhere mounting to 600,000-700,000 makes much sense. The only side pushing for the 3,000,000 figure is Turkmen parties backed by Turkey. Take a look at WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DUE to see why their view shouldn't be mentioned.--Rafy talk 15:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning other acedmics as well. For example, Captain Travis Patriquin has stated, in 2007, that in Tal Afar Iraqi Turkmen make up almost 100% of the 250,000 inhabitants [4]. Nonetheless, assuming that your figures are correct, there are still academics such as Scott Taylor who stated in 2004 that they made up 2,080,000 out of a total population of 25 million inhabitants and Patrick Clawson who suggests that they make up 9% of the total population (as does the 1957 census). Surely it is important that this is mentioned? I would understand your concern if I was to list a bunch of Turkish sources here, but these notable academics surely show that there is a wide arguement about the "true" population. If you feel very strongly about the UNPO I am willing to compromise by not including that in...but we should still include Taylor and Clawson (as well as Jenkins who states the 500,000-800,000 figure).Turco85 (Talk) 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's worth mentioning David L. Phillips, he states the following:

"Behind the Arabs and the Kurds, Turkmen are the third largest ethnic group in Iraq. The ITF claim Turkmen represent 12% of Iraq’s population. In response, the Kurds point to the 1997 census, which showed that there were only 600,000 Turkmen."

What this quote shows is that even if the Turkmen are not as large a number as they state, the 1997 census (which is considered by the International Crisis Group to have lowered the numbers) still showed the Turkmen at 600,000 out of a total population of 22,017,983 (or 2.72%). Thus, if we take into consideration today's 30 million it would be at least 826,868 (though we should not forget that Saddam's census is considered to have actually lowered their numbers in favour of the Arabs). Turco85 (Talk) 16:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone with inside knowledge of the region I have to disagree with you regarding Tel Afar, it may have had a Tukmen majority but it is currently predominantly Sunni Arab (Dulaimi tribes) due to the Arabisation campaigns in the 70s and 80s, hence the fierce Sunni insurgency by the way. The total number of Turkmen in Nineveh shouldn't exceed 100,000. The 1997 figures are probably tempered with but there is no way in knowing their real numbers.

There are many Arab tribes which are probably descended from Koyunlu and other pre-Ottoman Turkic tribes, Gaylani, Qara Ghulli, and Qara Bulli are few examples, they are however fully Arabised and indistinguishable from other Arab tribes.--Rafy talk 20:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of our own personal opinions, we must acknowledge the fact that there is a true debate about the number of Iraqi Turkmen; thus, we must try and be objective as well as neutral. The current version of the demographics section is not neutral. I have no problem with showing the CIA estimates as well as the lowered figures given by Kurdish groups; however, we must also show that there are other estimates that state otherwise that the population of the Iraqi Turkmen is much higher (whether you or I agree with it or not). I would appreciate it if you write up an example of a small paragraph here in which you think it should be written. You have already seen the paragraph which I propose above; hopefully we can come to some sort of compromise and make the demographics section more balanced. Turco85 (Talk) 00:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rafy, I'm still waiting for a response from you. If you do not propose your suggestions here soon, I will be editing the demographics section again soon. I've been waiting almost 2 months now...Turco85 (Talk) 13:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was somehow confused this discussion with the one at talk:Iraqi people. I also have no problem with numbers of Turkmen given by partisan sources as long as they are presented as "non-neutral partisan" somewhere not in the infobox. You might understand my concerns shown in a similar discussion connected with Arabs in Turkey.--Rafy talk 17:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well my proposal was the paragraph which I have already written above. I have been waiting for you to write a proposal so we can see were we can compromise. Basically, I have been trying to give you an oppurtunity to place some input here, I don't want to be edit warring. Would you be happy with the paragraph if I merely removed the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization? Here is a little re-touch:

According to the Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq's population is made up of 75%-80% Arabs, 15%-20% Kurds, and 5% Turkoman, Assyrian, or other. However, according to the 1957 Iraqi census, which is recognized as the last reliable census, as later censuses were reflections of the Arabization policies of the Ba’th regime, Arabs formed the largest ethnicity followed by Kurds (13%) and Iraqi Turkmen (9%). Subsequent censuses, in 1967, 1977, 1987 and 1997, are all considered highly unreliable, due to suspicions of regime manipulation. The population of the Iraqi Turkmens is of much heated debate in Iraq, the figure mostly referred to by Kurdish groups and Western scholars is that Iraqi Turkmen make up 2-3% of the Iraqi population, or approximately 500,000-800,000; however, not all Western scholars accept this view, for example, Scott Taylor suggested that the Iraqi Turkmen accounted for 2,080,000 (or 8.5%) of Iraq's inhabitants in 2004 whilst Patrick Clawson has stated that the Iraqi Turkmen make up about 9% of the total population. Turco85 (Talk) 13:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Freedom?

Should we say something about how the war is over now in the intro section...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.54.221.0 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably, Just do it.--Rafy talk 00:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Present government

There is little or nothing in this article describing the present government of the country, or the power-sharing arrangements between the various ethnic groups. hgilbert (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Diaspora

There is no evidence to suggest that the Christian diaspora is specifically engaged in prostitution only that they are Iraqi refugees not Christian refugees. See the source for this information, no where does it mention Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.202.252 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethnics

I'm not an expert on this country so my question will probably sound stupid, but are ethnic Iraqis Kurds or Arabs? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to a significant historical presence of Kurds and Arabs pre-dating what is now modern Iraq, the concept of 'Iraqi' is a nationalistic and not an ethnic one (although some Kurdish people in Iraq reject the notion of being 'Iraqi' and identify themselves only as Kurdish). To put it simply Arabs and Kurds are two closely related but separate ethnic groups who both reside in Iraq and are therefore considered 'Iraqi'. 78.148.26.171 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Salam F

Needs Help

Everyone from the Agriculture subsection to the end of the article needs to be rewritten by someone for whom English is not a second language. It is barely comprehensible, and there are no sources so I can't correct any of it. Primium mobile (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The orgination of the Mamluks that rulled Iraq

I have a source (Basra, the failed Gulf state: separatism and nationalism in southern Iraq By Reidar Visser) that proves the Georgian origination of the Mamluks who ruled Iraq in the 18th century. If anyone wants to add something to this this statement, PLEASE base your statements on identifying reliable sources. And PLEASE don't change my correction only because of "infringement of your national pride". Thanks.MrKindSailor (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)MrKindSailor

Shinar

Is Iraq also "Shinar" or the "Land of Shinar" mentioned in Genesis 10:10? I've stumbled upon a few scholarly articles that claim it is such.

Twillisjr (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Assyrians

Sooreta has been inserting a section on Assyrians into the demographics part of the article. There are a number of problems with this edit:

1. WP:BALASPS. 13 lines (and a picture!) are inserted into a section of 4 lines. This is the key one for this article; that information could never be added. The current wikilinked entry for Assyrian gives more than enough weight for an ethnicity that comprises (according to the CIA) less than 5% of the population. Consequently, I view any attempts to insert this material in this article as vandalism, but given that I'm not certain exactly how WP:3RR works and given that I've been busy tonight, I've not reverted the last addition.
2. WP:YOURFORMATTINGSUCKS. That really should be a policy. It probably is, hidden somewhere in WP:MOS.
3. WP:NPOV. It's clearly an advocacy edit. Let us work together to prevent such a tragedy from happening. (That's funny because it's also a direct quote from the edit).

I'd say the same if it was inserted in the Demographics of Iraq article. The Assyrians in Iraq could take it, but that article is much better written than this insert. Bromley86 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ther is More Arab as shown

More than 90 percent of population are arab and not 70 percent. Go Iraq and see it. Qadeer Nil (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GDP

The years stated next to the GDP data (2011 est and 2013 est) are not correct, which can be quickly verified by checking the source link. 80.121.150.81 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi currency

...is it true that Iraqi TV announced to the Iraqi public that there currency is going to revalue?76.189.56.155 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

          No, not in the sense that those that have fallen victim to the dinar scam are hoping for (i.e. 10,000+% increase).  There has been some discussion of attempting to raise the rate to 1,000 to 1 (a ~16% increase in value) but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.96.38.128.126 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Language

Iraqi Turkmen is a dialect of South Azeri. But in written form or for formal purposes, Iraqi Turkmens use the Standard Turkish of Turkey. Prior to the establishment of the Kurdish region with no central governmental control in the wake of the first Gulf War, Ottoman script was used. After that, and throughout Iraq after the second Gulf War, Turkish in the Latin script as used in Turkey is used by Iraqi Turkmens for formal or written purposes although the Iraqi Constitution refers to this as "Turkmen". Assyrians use neo-Syriac, although Protestant churches may use the vernacular Aramaic in Syriac script.

Ybgursey (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Council of Ministers of the Turkmen population in Iraq that the majority of Mosul and Tal Afar province of Salahuddin province is the Tuzhurmatu district reportedly has decided to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.186.22 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Turkmen, Syriac and Asuri have been added to the official languages of Iraq

World Bulletin / News Desk Three more languages recognized officially in Iraq

Turkmen, Syriac and Asuri were recognized as official languages in Iraq, bringing the number of official languages in the country to five after Arabic and Kurdish. The Iraqi National Assembly has voted in favor of the amendment, which allows Turkmen, Syriac and Asuri minorities to use their languages in their conducts in the regions where they constitute the majority of the population. According to the new regulation, Kurdish will be used in all governmental conducts and official correspondences as well as scripts on money and passports. The new measures came out after an appeal by deputies of the related minorities and were voted on Wednesday. Iraqi parliament’s Culture and Media Committee chairman Ali al-Shelah said the amendments will contribute to the democratization of Iraq. A Turkmen member of Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Administrations Assembly, Muhammed Ilhanli said the new regulations are a good step but unfair to other minorities as their languages would not be credited as much as Kurdish. According to the Iraq's constitution Kurdish is the second official language after Arabic, however, it had not been used in official correspondences until the recent changes.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.198.85 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Tal Afar province is going on and Tuzhurmatu

Iraq by the decision of the council of ministers new provinces Tall afar and Tuz hurmatu Iraq Turkmens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.198.85 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Iraq

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Iraq!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil and Tourism in Germany. :) Use proper sources! Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

Hi, the information on Iraq is garbage. The country pumps out 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The article says they have $229 billion in oil revenue last year. Oil is around $100 a barrel, and has been for a few years. This is obvious nonsense. Thanks.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579438860227481506

http://oil-price.net/dashboard.php?lang=en

TimmyCat62.9 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for sharing your opinion. If you would like to make an edit request, please capture the change you would like to make in a 'please change X to Y' format and provide reliable sources for any factual changes. Older and ... well older (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Galloway167 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)The article is correct. Iraq exports about $91B (2013 estimate), and 84% of that is crude ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html and click on economy). So then .84 * 91B / 365 / $100/barrel = 2.094mbpd . The entire GDP of Iraq is about $229B, not oil revenue. Whether or not the oil INDUSTRY is 97% of GDP I don't know, but its possible. But each dollar or Dinar gets counted multiple times. e.g. of that 100/barrel say 50 goes to buy services from Iraqis, that 50 is counted AGAIN in GDP. Then those workers take their pay and buy lunch made entirely in Iraq, that gets counted AGAIN. The ratio is only so low ($76B dollars of oil exports only translating to only $200 or so billion in GDP) due to so many products and services being purchased from outside of Iraq and that they are exporting raw recourses (crude) instead of products requiring more work (gasoline, plastics, etc).

Change Opening Sentence to "was" ?

Iraq has now effectively ceased to exist as we knew it. Is it time to change the opening sentence to "Iraq was ..." ? Just a thought my fellow editors. SmokeyTheCat 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What an odd comment. Do you know something the rest of us don't? Atshal (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of sections have no citation

I've tried to improve this article these past two days but there's still A LOT of work that needs to be done. I've also tagged many of the sections that don't have any references or only use on source. These are probably a good place to start. Good luck!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

History is largely about U.S.

I've tried to improve the history sections. They were total garbage before and were basically just a random group of facts lumped into a series of successive paragraphs (no joke). A main problem is that because of the wars or whatever the sections are heavily biased toward the U.S. and including American actions into this country level article. It would be nice to know something about the development and changes within Iraq's society, economy and government during these periods but as it stands it's really focused on wars and not much is said about these other things. I remember hearing that Iraq was one of the richest countries in the Middle East prior to the 1980s/90s and that the country wasn't pulling apart in the 50s,60s, 70s, etc. So basic edits to improve this neglected content can be done by just reading and summarizing the History sections from the Wikipedia history of Iraq pages. The key is to keep it short, provide the links to important themes and don't get wrapped up in minutia. Good luck!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Iraq Independence label

Hello,

On the right margin with its name and flag, on the Government or Independence tab; it says that Iraq (one of the oldest and civilized nations) gained independence from England - the albino mutant, the giant hill. I find this very demeaning to a former Persian province. It should be changed immediately to mention its glorious history and its Persian ties. I believe that it should be labelled as Establishments instead.

I hope you will consider the changes, and down with Zionist-controlled internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.167.144 (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article nowhere mentions "England", nor "albino mutant", nor "giant hill". Maproom (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

The list of governorates does not match the map on the right side (number 19, Halabja, is not shown). That map should be discarded. Instead, the map linked to in Governorates of Iraq should be used. 98.14.104.193 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not Done - Halabja is shown on the map in the article. DJAMP4444 18:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it there. The map shows it as part of Sulaymaniyah. Maproom (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Republic and Ba'athist Iraq

3rd para, second sentence "Quote: This subsequently led to military intervention by United States-led forces in the second Gulf War.Unquote" I served on H.M.C.S Protecteur in 1991 in this Gulf War. I always considered this to be the first Gulf War and not the "second" Gulf War.70.64.207.176 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So did I. And so do the sources I have checked. I guess this was a simple mistake, and have corrected it. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy

I would like to invite editors to comment at RfC proposal on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy, essentially resolving whether Iraqi Kurdistan should or shouldn't be added to the "other Dependent territories" under Asia topic.GreyShark (dibra) 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

با عرض سلام خدمت اهل سنت و سنيان عزيز و گرامي در عراق و در کل جهان .ممکنه براتون جاي سئوال باشه چه چيز موجب شده که بيام و مجددا در حضور شما صحبت بکنم و موضوع صحبتم در چه خصوص است.اين صحبت من درواقع يه درخواست ازتون هست و درواقع ادامه صحبتي هست که در خصوص حل درگيري ها و ناملايمت ها که مسلما بين شما و شيعه وجود دارد.سنيان عزيز اگه يادتون باشه من در متن مباحثه قبلم در خصوص تشکيل يک سازمان واحد و يک حزب باهاتون صحبت کردم و نيز در خصوص عدم مخالفت هيچ کس و نيز کمک من به شما در خصوص تشکيل اين حزب گفتم درسته قبول دارم علت اصلي اين درگيري ها در گفتن زور به شماست و اعتقاد شما به قول خودشون ميخوان دين اسلام بشه يک دين واحد اما نمي دونن اصل دين در افتادن ياد انسان به خدا و فراموش نکردن خداست چيزي که واقعا در دنياي امروز خيلي ضعيف شده فقط تنها چيزي که بر جاي مونده تنها لفظي هست که ما به ياد خدا هستيم چون نماز ميخونيم چون نيايش ميکنيم ما به ياد خدا هستيم چون مدام خدا رو نيايش ميکنيم اما در حضور خدا دست به هزاران جنايانت و اعمال ير انساني ميزنن مسلما در ان لحظه که دست به چنين اعمالي ميزنن خدا رو فراموش ميکنند يا اگه هم به ياد داشته باشن مسلما از خدا نمي ترسن و کسي که از خدا نترسد مسلما بهش اعتقاد ندارد چون هر اندازه که عقيده انسان نسبت به خدا قوي تر بشه بيشتر به هيبت و بزرگي خدا پي ميبرد مثل ديدن خورشيد از نزديک با ديد خورشيد از داخل يه سوراخ با فاصله هزاران متري هست مسلما زماني ميشه قدرت و شدت گرامي خورشيد رو ديد که از نزديک مشاهده اش کرد از نزديک حسش کرد و به همون اندازه که نزديک خورشيد ميشي از اشعهشديد خورشيد نمي توني طاقت بياري چون چشمان رو نابينا و پوست بدن را مي سوزاند اين همون حد انسان در مشاهده خداست به همون اندازه که انسان به هيبت خدا پي ببرد در محضرش هيچ گاه دست به اعمال غير انساني نميزند و اما چيزي که الان در دنياي امروز وجود دارد ديدن خورشيد از دال يه سوراخ در فاصله هزار متري هست خوب ببينيد خوب نگاه کنيد به جنگ ها درگيري هاي ايجاد شده در عراق مسئولين کشور تحت عنوان قانوني به نام قانون اساسي دست به هزاران اعمال غير انساني ميزنند و با ادعاي اينکه داريم ديني واحد در عراق قرار ميديم و قانون اسلام رو پياده ميکنيم به مردم مخالف شون زور ميگن ايا کسي مي تونه به زور دين کسي رو تغيير بده؟ايا پيامبر به زور دين کسي رو تغيير داد پيامبر براي تغيير دين مردم و هدايت مردم باهاشون صحبت کرد از مخالفان ستم ديد اما باز باهاشون صحبت کرد اما عملکرد الان مسئولين کشور که ادعاي اسلام داري ميکنند زور هست به جاي اينکه اول با مخالفان صحبت ميکردن اين همه به مسئولين عراق گفتم در زمان فعاليتم قبل از سياست نوين اما هيچي به هيچي هنوزم که هنوزه تمام کاراشون از سر لج و لج بازي با من و گفته هام هست و من مطمئنم در اين لج و لج بازي مسئولين دولت ايران مقصرند اونم به دو دليل 1.به خاطر اينکه روابط رهبري ايران با مسئولين دولت عراق خيلي خوبه و2.اينکه چون من در مورد عملکرداشون که دارن با زور و شکنجه مخالفان نظم رو برقرار ميکنند و حکومتشونو به ثبت ميرسونن و يک قانون رو پياده ميکنند اونيکه که خودشون در نظر دارن و به زور اعتقاد مردمي رو که ممکنه هم عقيده اونا نباشن به دلايل در نظر گرفته خودشون تغيير ميدن در حاليکه خود مسئولين و حتي کسانيکه ادعاي دين داري اونم در دين شيعه رو ميکنند همچنان در دين اسلام و شيعه اش مفهوم شيعه رو متوجه نشدن و مفهوم اسلام رو.من نميخوام ادعا کنم که خودم دين دار خوبي هستم اما اينا که ادعاي کدخدا بودن ميکنند در دين داري اونقدر کامل نيستن در اسلام قانوني تحت عنوان اين نيست که ادما رو بدون تفکر در مورد خدا شناسي و انسان شناسي به زور به تبعيت از دين دعوت کنند اگه اين جور بود پيامبر حرکت اولشون رو براي دين داري مردم از اين روش استفاده ميکردن حتي در دين شيعه که من خودم مسلمان از نوع شيعه هستم هيچ امامي روش اول دعوتشون به اسلام و اسلام داري از زور نبوده با اينکه خيلي از مخالفان داشتن و با اينکه مدت زيادي از بنيانگذاري دين اسلام و اتمام مسئولين پيامبر در خصوص بنا نهادن اسلام گذشته بود خب اساس دين اسلام به دعوت نه جنگ هر دوره نسل جديد مياد با سئوال هاي جديد وقتي مسئولين به اصطلاح دين دار به زبان خودشون براي پاسخ گويي به سئوالات روش اولشونو براي براقراري نظم و نکنه اينکه حرفي زده بشه منافعشون به خطر بيوفته و منافعشونو در اولويت قرار بدن بنظرتون کار اونا روش درستي هست ممکنه بگيد اين روش درستي هست چون مخالفاني هست در اين ميان ممکنه از اين شيوه مسئولين کشور سو استفاده کنند و بيشتر مردم رو بکشن اما من ميگم اگه از روش اول استفاده کنن که کردن خودتون ببينيد هم مردم دارن هر روز کشته ميشن و جونشون در خطر هست هم شماري از مخالفان و اعضاي مسئولين دولت دارن ميميرن پس اين نشون ميده روششون لنگ داره ولي اگه اول از روش صحبت استفاده کنند مسلما چون روش صحبت هست در بين مخالفان اونايي که سو استفاده گر هستن و اونايي که مخالف با دليل منطقي هستن کاملا مجزا ميشن و اين کمکي هست براي مسئولين دولت که بتونن ببين در بين مخالفان چه کساني واقعا مخالف هستن و چه کساني سو استفاده گرند در ثاني در اين روش ماندگار بيشتري براي تبعيت از قوانين حکومت هست و اتحاد اما زور باعث نمايش چهره بد مسئولسن در ذهن مردم ميشه که حتي اونايي هم که تابع مسئولين خواهند بود اگه وابسته به منافع و پول و قدرت نباشن به مرور زمان از عملکردهاي مسئولين سرد خواهند شد و کساني که حمايت از دولت ميکنند يا براي پورسانت خواهد بود يا براي چشم و هم چشمي خب اين نميشه اتحاد و مفهوم اصلي اتحاد اين نيست.براي برقراري اتحاد مسلما روش صحبت مناسب ترين روش هست و حال براي قراري نظم بعد از اينکه در صحبت بين افراد مخالف سو استفاده گران مشخص شدن براي سر به راه کردنشون از روش زور استفاده ميکنند و نيز استفاده از روش نظامي بايد در درجه اول در خدمت نگهباني و حافظ مردم باشه اما من ميبينم بيشتر حافظ حکومت هست تا حافظ مردم چون روز به روز دارن شمار زيادي از مردم در نتيجه اين درگيري ها بين مسئولين و مخالفان کشته ميشن مسلما اگه حکومت نظامي در خدمت مردم باشه چرا دارن شمار زيادي از رمدم کشته ميشن اگه حامي مردم باشه بايد محافظشون باشه که جونشون به خطر نيوفته در ثاني در اين درگيري ها ومردم واقعا تحت عنوان يک وسيله استفاده شدن خب چرا؟ مردم چه گناهي کردن که بايد در اين درگيري که ميون مخالفان و مسئولين هست کشته بشن به اي مسئولين کشور که بايد حامي مردم باشن کوتاه بيان دارن در نتيجه لج و لج بازي با مردم مخالف چون به جاي اينکه از روش صحبت باهاشون استفاده کنن مثل اونا از روش زور استفاده ميکنند و اسمشو ميزارن اقتدار در حاليکه اين روششون ميشه ظلم و اونا ظالم هستن واقعا هم با ظلم فرقي نميکنه چون اونا به جاي ايکنه از روش صحبت استفاده کنن دارن جواب مخالفان رو با زور ميدن بعد وقتي من انتقاد ميکنم از روششون قانون اساسيشونو به رخخ ميکشن در حاليکه اگه قانون اساسي که به اصطلاح خودشون از قران گرفته شده روش درستي به اونا ميگه پس چرا دارن روز زور گويي رو ميگه طبق صحبت هاي بالاي من همين کارشون موجب شده که قربانيان اين لج و لج بازي تنها مردم باشن.من ازتون ميخوام شما براي تشکيل حزبتون تلاش کنيد تا جواب لج و لج بازي دادن هاي مسئولين رو کاري نداشته باشين اونا چي ميگن و قوانينشون چي هست چون شما دارين کار خودتونو انجام ميدين اگه اونا بخوان با اين کارتون مخالفت کنند پس اين مورد اثبات خواهد شد بر همگان که اونا دارن از شيوه زور بر شما استفاده ميکنند که اين ماندگاري حکومتشون کمتر ميکنند اگه هم بخوان بگن ما با زور ميخواييم اعتقاد رو عوض کنيم مسلما قانون اساسيشون زير سئوال خواهد رفت چون هيچ گاه در قران نوشته نشده که با زور بر مردم عقايدشونو تغيير بده حتي اساس قران که دعوت مردم به تفکر کردن هست نشان خواهد داد که هيچ گاه روش زور روشي نيست که اسلام گفته و زندگي نامه ائمه و اين موجب ميشه مسئوليني که حمايت از شيعه ميکنند زير سئوال برن من ازتون ميخوام براي تکشيل حزب وقتتونو بزاريد تا دادن جواب به مسئولين تا مردم نيز در ميان از درگيري ها بازيچه قرار گرفته نشن و کشته نشن.فکر کنم به اندازه کافي صحبت کردم و تمام موارد رو بيان کردم و ازتون ميخوام حتما روئيت فرماييد.با تشکر17:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Naghmehamit (talk)

Temple discovered

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/remains-temple-discovered-iraq_n_5567638.html

---

Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Largest cities

I noticed that the list of largest cities (in the "Demographics" section) gives completely different data to the link used to support it. I'm not sure if the link passes RS in any case. Just thought I'd leave a note here. Formerip (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Iraq's ethnic structure : % 75 Arabs ,% 15-17 Kurdish , % 8-9 Turks ([Iraqi Turkmens]),% 2-3 Other (Assyrian-Chaldean-yezidi-shabaks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

87th? Seriously?

This page says that Iraq ranks 87th in hdi 2014 with 0.573 score. It actually has had 0.573 score ... in 2011 report, and ranked 132th. In 2014 report it scores 0.642 and ranks 120th globally. NOTHING harms Wikipedia image as much as these stupid mistakes, because THIS IS SO EASY TO CHECK. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-summary-en.pdf Kaxovskiy (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Iraq

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iraq's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "latimes2701":

• From Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal): "Suicide bomber kills 32 at Baghdad funeral march". Fox News. Associated Press. 27 January 2012. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
• From Iraqi insurgency (Iraq War): http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fgw-iraq-bombing-20120128,0,1715253.story. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The LA Times source is a dead link, but it has been archived by archive.org here. The Fox News source displays the exact same Associated Press source text, and is therefore probably more appropriate. I'll put that in now. Apples grow on pines (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Amerli Turkmen

Islamic State of Iraq Damascus Turkmen resist terrorism won the battle Amerli

Amerli Turkmen

Iraqi forces 'reach besieged Amerli' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.59.152 (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Amirli

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014

Under the Demographic section where it shows the populate of cities. The top city shows a population and after " im afraid of bananas". Has anyone not noticed this? 24.111.7.194 (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Done It was vandalism at Template:Largest cities of Iraq, which I've reverted. Cheers, NiciVampireHeart 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Dear Wikipeda,

My concern is regarding the following section: "In the 26th century BC, Eannatum of Lagash created what was perhaps the first Empire in history, though this was short lived. Later, Lugal-Zage-Si, the priest-king of Umma, overthrew the primacy of the Lagash dynasty in the area, then conquered Uruk, making it his capital, and claimed an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.[21] It was during this period that the Epic of Gilgamesh originates, which includes the tale of The Great Flood"

The last sentence is not entirely true. The reason for this is that the story of The Great Flood (or Atrahasis as it is called in Akkadian) was not incorporated into the Epic of Gilgamesh before the Old Babylonian Period (roughly 2000-1500) (see e.g., Andrew George, 2003: "Epic of Gilgamesh, vol. 1". Pp. 22-23). Actually, before this period the Epic was not even a single narrative, but consisted of various incoherent stories about the legendary king. Therefore, I suggest the following:

"In the 26th century BC, Eannatum of Lagash created what was perhaps the first Empire in history, though this was short lived. Later, Lugal-Zage-Si, the priest-king of Umma, overthrew the primacy of the Lagash dynasty in the area, then conquered Uruk, making it his capital, and claimed an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.[21] It was during this period that the first Sumerian tales of Gilgamesh emerged in cuneiform." [Footnote to Andrew George, 2003: "The Epic of Gilgamesh, vol. 1". P. 6] Hardeknud (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't necessarily object to this change, but it seems like it is something that some readers and other editors may object to. I'm sure that any editor with the ability to make this change would rather see at least some discussion supporting this change. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

78.48.51.75 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC) african

No request present Mlpearc (open channel) 18:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

Environment

Iraq has a number of environmental issues with some relating to past military conflicts.

Events of 1980–2005 have created environmental crises of emergency proportions. Military operations in three wars (Iran–Iraq War, Gulf War, and Iraq War) have left unexploded ordnance and land mines in exposed positions, killing or wounding an estimated 100,000 people in the early 2000s.Environmental Crisis Worsening In Iraq Because of infrastructure damage, significant parts of the population do not have adequate water supply or sanitation systems, and sites where municipal and medical wastes have accumulated carry the risk of disease epidemics. The wartime destruction of military and industrial infrastructure has released heavy metals and other hazardous substances into the air, soil, and groundwater.

Numerous spills have resulted from damage to Iraq’s oil infrastructure, and the lack of water treatment facilities at Iraqi refineries has led to pollution from those installations. In the alluvial plain, soil quality has been damaged by the deposit of large amounts of salts, borne by irrigation overflows and wind and promoted by poor soil drainage. Desertification and erosion also have reduced arable land.

Transboundary pollution and a lack of river basin management by the government have led to the degradation of Iraq's major waterways. Under Saddam Hussein, the government constructed the Glory Canal which drained the extensive marshes in the lower reaches of the alluvial plain, changing water circulation and wildlife patterns over a wide area. Beginning in 2004, some restoration has occurred. Flooding danger in the alluvial plain has decreased since construction of dams upstream on the Euphrates. Although the interim government appointed in 2004 included a Ministry of Environment, long-term environmental crises such as the depletion of marshland in the Shatt al Arab have a low priority.

Nature Iraq (Arabic, طبيعة العراق) is Iraq's first and only environmental conservation group.[1] It is an Iraqi non-governmental organization, accredited to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and affiliated to BirdLife International. They seek to protect, restore, and preserve Iraq’s natural environment and the rich cultural heritage that depends upon it. They conduct major work in sustainable development, biodiversity, and water resources. Nature Iraq was founded in 2003 by Azzam Alwash, a Iraqi refugee and engineer in the United States who returned to Iraq following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Awssbatti (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling mistake needs correction

Title "British adminitration and independent Kingdom" should be "administration"

75.157.212.129 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmens population % 9

The Iraqi Turkmen are the third largest ethnic group in Iraq. According to the 1957 Iraqi census, which is considered to be the last reliable census in Iraq, there was 567,000 Turks out of a total population of 6.3 million, forming 9% of the total Iraqi population. However, due to the undemocratic environment, their number has always been underestimated and has long been a point of controversy. For example, in the 1957 census, the Iraqi government first claimed that there was 136,800 Turks in Iraq. However, the revised figure of 567,000 was issued after the 1958 revolution when the Iraqi government admitted that the Iraqi Turkmens population was actually more than 400% from the previous year's total. Subsequent censuses, in 1967, 1977, 1987 and 1997, are all considered highly unreliable, due to suspicions of regime manipulation. The 1997 census states that there was 600,000 Iraqi Turkmen out of a total population of 22,017,983, forming 2.72% of the total Iraqi population; however, this census only allowed its citizens to indicate belonging to one of two ethnicities, Arab or Kurd, this meant that many Iraqi Turkmens identified themselves as Arabs (the Kurds not being a desirable ethnic group in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq), thereby skewing the true number of Iraqi Turkmen.

The Turkmen of Iraq [6],Iraqi Turkmens flee IRAQ WILL LIVE FOR EVER AND DAESH WONT MAKE THERE WAY DOWN EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ISIL in Mosul's Telafer district,[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

567,000 or 9% of the total Iraqi population (According to the 1957 census- considered to be the last reliable census that permitted the minority to register)

Iraq 1957 census Turkmens % 9

ISIL terror

Isil besieges town of Amerli amid fears of repeat of Sinjar massacre

UN: ISIS Massacred 700 Turkmen--Including Women, Children, Elderly

Iraq army 'training Turkmen to fight ISIL' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.159.112 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Do we include isis?

The problem with the map in the info bar is that it does not include any occupying force, i guess it's complicated but it would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegee12 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)