Talk:Iraqis/Archive 1

Archive 1

New ethnicity?

There is no ethnic group such as Iraqi; Iraqi is a nationality. Ellipi (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism done by non-Iraqis

To the users "Ellipi" and "Babakexorramdin": you are Kurdish and Iranian. What is your problem with this article? The Iraqi people deserve a page just as much as the Kurds have their seperate page from Iranians even though they are both similar people! Being Iraqi is not just a nationality and does not mean they are just "Arab"; genetics proves this! Besides being Arab is not an ethnicity, even though we are still proud of being Arabs. Are you both this racist and shallow that you have to go vandalising this page. Leave Iraq for Iraqis only, stop putting your nose where it does not belong and worship your own country or in Ellipi's case, territory.

I'm starting to think you are right. Iraqis are not just Arabs. The same as Azarbaijanis are not Turks; Iraqis are originally arabicized Iranians, the same as Azarbaijanis are turkicized Iranians. This is also evident by the fact that strong majority of Iraqis, have an Iranian culture. Ellipi (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do tell me of these Iraqis that have Iranian culture? What is Iranian culture if I may ask? Iraqis are Semites and not Iranian people. Sure many Iraqis probably share some Iranian genetics due to the constant Persian invasions and close proximity of the lands. But we are Iraqis, not "arabicized Iranians" (it would be spelled "Arabised Iranians" anyways). Also I am sure the Azerbaijani people would not fully agree with your statement.

Well, from before the Sumerians, when the Iranian highland stimulated the development of culture in Iraq, to the Safavids era, when the majority of sedentary population of Iraq including the craftsmen and tradesmen were still Iranian, (while only Bedouin tribes in deserts were Arabs) we see that the great contributers to the so-called Iraqi culture are Iranians.

Unfortunately Iraqi issues are not in my interest zone, as I mainly edit the Kurdish-related articles of Iranian world. I hope there will be some/someone else who see the article interesting and will contribute to it. Ellipi (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Well, from before the Sumerians, when the Iranian highland stimulated the development of culture in Iraq, to the Safavids era, when the majority of sedentary population of Iraq including the craftsmen and tradesmen were still Iranian, (while only Bedouin tribes in deserts were Arabs) we see that the great contributers to the so-called Iraqi culture are Iranians." It is still a mystery to me how an elevated mountainous plateau ("Iranian highland") is able to stimulate culture, but please do not share your mistaken thoughts here. Wikipedia is not a place for acting on ones minority complex. Afterall we are all humans, no matter if we are from North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia; Iraqi culture is a human culture of which everyone can be proud of. Still it is not a reason to twist facts. In fact (!) just look at Persepolis or the symbol of Zoroastrianism "Faravahar" and you can see the influence of Iraqi civilization on Iran. The way of writing was cuneiform!

If this is not in your interest zone, then please do not edit it, or better yet do not vandalise it! Carry on editing your beloved Iranian and Kurdish articles but leave Iraqi articles if you do not find them interesting!

"Like many of its Semitic and non-Semitic neighbours, the Iraqi people developed a series of great civilizations ranging from the ancient Sumerians (culturally stimulated from Iranian highlands) and..." Did you still not stop vandalising the article? Where is your source that the ancient Sumerians were "culturally stimulated from Iranian highlands". This is starting to become downright silly and highly annoying!

Babak you are NOT Iraqi, why dont you go and waste your precious time on persian articles, why Iranians always jump into Iraq-related articles and start to vandalise and have an urge to put the word "persian" into it, maybe it is because EVERYTHING in your so called persian empire is of MESOPOTAMIAN orgin!! more specific SEMITIC ASSYRIAN culture and architecture, the sign that you wear around your neck and are proud of is derived from KING ASHURBANIPAL symbol which is nothing but an IRAQI with other words Mesopotamian!! Besides Babak Feilis are NOT persians, they are shia kurds, and one more thing to add to your facts and so everyone sees here, in iran itself 24% of its populations are carriers of the Arabid Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA), just like SEMITIC/Arabian people including Arabs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Siryanis, Hebrews etc. so you better stop vandalising because you yourself might be a carrier of ARABID gene :)

Iraqi people or Iraqi Arabs?

Is this article about the Iraqi people or Iraqi Arab? I see two different rival types of editing here 1- those who correctly view these artcile as an article of Iraqi nation with all its ethnic and religious groups. 2- Those who puch this towards a Pan Arab definition and exclude non Arabs. And moreover consider this country as one of the many Sunni Arab countries, and by this even neglect the cultural characteristics of the Shiite Iraqis, who speak Arabic. Moreover the numbers in infobox refer to all ethnic and religious groups of the Iraqi nation. For example those in Iran are mostly Shiite Arabs, Kurds and Felis. I will put a tag on it until these points are adressed.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Iraqi Arabs. It originally said Iraqi Arabs are different than other Arabs. It was balanced to: Iraqi Arabs too are Arabs. But then you came and changed the article to reflect a baathist point of view: to forge an Iraqi identity. Something strongly rejected by all citizes of Iraq except for the Sunni Arab minority. Basically such articles that are about citizens of a country are merged into demographics of that country. Ellipi (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was named Iraqi peoples. Then panArabists and Assyrian enationalists came here to exclude the Kurds. Like they did in all other articles like Iraqis in.... I a baathist? Hahah, do not let me laugh. Sunni Arabs and Assyrians are very likely to be Baathists, but not me. It is post- Saddam era and Tarik Aziz also is no body any more. Better get used to the idea that Iraq like most other countries is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Moreover if one claims that Iraqis are only Arabs and Assyrians then the numbers should be edited. As we know for example in Iran Iraqis are Kurds, Felis (Persians) and Shia Arabs, who nevertheless has not much to do with Arabism. If you think it should be only Iraqi Arabs and Assyriians, go ahead but then you should come with accurate claims and numbers--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that if by Iraqi People citizens of Iraq are meant then it would be better to merge the article into demographics of that country as in: Syrian people, Afghani people, Kuwait/People, Jordanian people etc. And if by Iraqi people a forged new ethnic group is meant (actually an OR), then Kurds must be excluded. Ellipi (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You can different articles for different subgroups of iraqis, like sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians etc... But Iraqi Arab should not be associated only with the (sunni) Arabs and Assyrians. In fact this is Baathists, not my POV.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If the article is not going to be for citizens of Iraq but for Arabs of Iraq, then Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Christian Arabs all go under the same category of Iraqi Arabs/people, except for the Kurds who are not related to these. Ellipi (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

the so called Christian Arabs are Assyrians. Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs are very different. You can rename this article as Iraqi Assyro-Arabs, or Arab speakers of Iraq, like there is the Persian speakers of Iran. But I do not recommand it, because it is not a coherent ethnic group. Wgat I suggest is also to call it th Semitic people of Iraq, by this you add mandeans to the list too. Then the article Iraqi people should be diverted to the demographics of Iraq. In Iraq there live a significant number of Non-semitic people these are Kurds, Felis/Persians and Turcomans. You should not exclude arbitrarily the people from Iraqi citizenship. May I remind you that the Iraqi president is not an Arab but a Kurd? And most Iraqi grand Ayatollahs are Persian and not Arab? The time of PanArab racism in Iraq is definitly over.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the best solution is to merge the article into demographics of Iraq. (cf. Afghanistani people). Ellipi (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

yes thats a good idea. In the case of Afghanistan, however, there is yet another problem. That country has an ethnic name. Afghan meant originally only Pashtun, so Afghanistan is in fact Pashtunistan. Afghanistani is used as a name for the citizens of Afghanistan. Yet many , notably Englis-speaking. editors oppose Afghanistani asa legitimate word.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that something has happened here. Why is that? Will this article be renamed or forwarded or edited etc..? This article as it is now is biased and sounds too Baathists/ PanArabist! An article of this type should not be free of any ideologies.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ellipi (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not make this article be about the Iraqi nationality, and make a separate Iraqi Arabs article?Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC

The fact that all users discussing this are not Iraqi but of other ethnic groups is very suspicious and no "Babakexorramdin" Sunni, Shia and Christian Iraqis are not very different. I should know as my parents and many of their friends should be very "different" according to you - yet they are not. This is not a Pan-Arab article as you claim it but an article celebrating the Iraqi people who for thousands of years had a history very different than that of e.g. the people of Qatar. However during one of the many Persian invasions of Iraq and the following Sassanid rule of Iraq, the (also semitic) people of Arabia freed Iraqis from foreign Persian rule and introduced Islam and Arabic which was followed by the great Abbasid Caliphate. Thus Iraqis are not only proud of their ancient history but also of their medieval Arabic history. In fact, being an Arab is the same as being European. It is not an ethnic group but a bunch of ethnic groups such as Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, Gulf Arabs etc. who are Semites, but also Egyptians, Berbers etc. who have been unified by a recent similar culture and language: Arabic (unlike the Europeans who still all speak different languages of different linguistic groups: Germanic, Romance (which derive from Latin) etc.) Or do you suggest that everyone from Morocco to Iraq and Oman are the same people? No! However we speak the same language through the coming of Islam. This is also the reason why many Christian Iraqis still speak Neo-Aramaic: they had no need of adopting Arabic as Arabic is not the language of the Holy Bible.

Regardless, Syrian Christians in Iraq have a separate ethnic identity. You also seem not to mention Kurds or Turcomans in your idea that Iraqis are an ethnic group. This article is about a nationality and a national diaspora, we should have a separate article on Iraqi Arabs. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Iraqis are not Arabs they are speakers of Arabic. Irish people speak English but that doesn't make them English. Iraqis became Arabized. The fact that they previously spoke semitic languages like Akkadian and Aramaic facilitated the transition to Arabic with the arrival of Islam and Arab hegemony. This would be like Germany conquering Sweden and Swedish people adopting the German language. Also, linguistics doesn't correlate well with genetic constitution, there have been over 1000 incontiguous years of Iranian hegemony in Iraq and 400 years of Ottoman. Genetic analysis in Turkey shows that the indigenous Anatolians were Turkicized. Greater Syria (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish people are not 'English' because they maintain a separate identity. Iraqi Arabs, however, see themselves as Arabs. 'This would be like Germany conquering Sweden and Swedish people adopting the German language', or like Turks conquering Anatolia and Anatolians adopting the Turkish language. Or like Romans conquering Gaul, Dacia and Hispania and Gauls, Dacians and Iberians adopting Latin. To anon: why does it matter that I'm not an Arab, Iraqi or Semite? Are you accusing me of bias? Well, of course I'm biased. But no less than you are - being an Iraqi, Semite and Arab gives one as much bias as being a non-Iraqi, non-Semitic, non-Arab. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA

Recent edits to this article and the Babil Governorate article concerning the DNA analysis of bones of ancient Babylonians and living people in the area was not support by the citation to National Geographic that was provided provided. A search of National Geographic and other sources such as Science News, Science and Nature did not turn up any such report. I have deleted those paragraphs as unsupported. Please do not reinstate them until and unless an accurate supporting citation to a reliable published source is provided. In general the problem with attempted DNA analysis of ancient human bones is contamination. See, for example, (May 29, 2003) "Anthropologists cast doubt on human DNA evidence" Nature 423(6939): p.468. --Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement was first added to this article in an edit of 29 March 2009 by Mussav. --Bejnar (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bejnar's remarks were truncated by 70.57.246.220 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.246.220 (talk)

Pictures?

A lot of notable ancient and contemporary Iraqis are listed in the orange box, but there are no pictures to go along with the names. It would strengthen the article if someone fixed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.64.216 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Banu Delphi

In the article, it mentions an Arabic tribe called "Banu Delphi", who are apparantly decended from Ancient Greeks. I have never heard of any such tribe in Iraq, not had any research online brought up any results. Can someone please enlighten me more me of this bizarre and completely unsupported claim. I find it quite fascinating in being completely unique compared the the usual commonly accepted theories concerning the origin of the Iraqis or Arabs. Take care. Pink Princess (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:500 Iraqi Dinar back.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:500 Iraqi Dinar back.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) 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there really an Assyrian people ??

I am just amazed that these so called Assyrians, who are in fact Suriyanees(Arameans) from Turkey, the nestorians of Turkey that comnverted many neighbouring nations into the new sect, and used Arameans as their language. DNA material proves that they are a mix of Greeks, Syrians, Kurds, Persians and Armenians. Language is not anymore determinantal for designating a ethnic group.

Still they have filled the whole internet with filth and wrong information. Even the ancient Assyrians were not a race, merely a designation of a family name or a religious God Ashur. Assyria was populated largely by the Subartus who were governed by a family that imposed the Semitic Assyrian language and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyako2000 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's your own opinion, keep it for yourself and watch your language. Major Assyriologists (Richard Nelson Frye, Simo Parpola, Robert D. Biggs, H. W. F. Saggs, Austen Henry Layard, George Percy Badger, Hormuzd Rassam...) attest to the continuity claim and I don't see how the disputed tag is necessary on a well-referenced section.--Rafy talk 10:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well there are also numerous sources that back up what I wrote, there is nobody to stop these nonsense that is paid and subsidized by some pathatic wanna be Assyrians in America. I do not believe in sources and research funded by so called Assyrians. Man you are worse than Turks, that is just a prove that you come from nowhere and try to create something imaginary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyako2000 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, this is not a personal conflict between you and me. your claim that those Assyriologists are paid and subsidised by Assyrians is unheard of, please do read WP:CONSPIRACY to get a clear idea of Wikipedia's policy about that. If you don't agree with the sentence you tagged bring some RELIABLE sources otherwise I will remove it.--Rafy talk 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely not personal, how possible when I dont even know you !!! I will not only provide sources but organize a debate about this issue, people and especially assyriologists are afraid of harassment and attack by you so called Assyrians. I have talked to many Arab and European Assyrioligists and told me this fact, and they are not finding it even necessary or worthy discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyako2000 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok bring some reliable sources that Assyriologists are being harassed by Assyrians please. I will remove your tags here and on the Assyrian people article until you do so and you will be reported for edit-warring if you still revert with no sources to support your claim.--Rafy talk 08:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What a joke, Assyrians paying Assyriologists to back them up? are you going to claim we payed them to fabricate the sources and evidence they have found while researching Assyrian continuity? Please show us your sources and this seems like a personal attack on the Assyrian identity, you're hate won't be tolerated here Aturaya (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkmen of ıraq

The population census in Iraq in 1957, the Turkish POSITION (Turkmen) rate of 8.94% was determined. mevcuttur.Günümüz distant sources and the archives of Iraq is a fact that according to the population to be around 2.5 to 3 million, Kirkuk, Mosul, Tel afer, Erbil, Selahhadin live in cities.

İraqi Turkmen in Iraq in the 2010 parliamentary elections and the newly established 10 attorney earned the government undertook the task of three ministries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.169.200 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• [Iraqi Turkmens,Turkmeneli] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.169.200 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The percentage of Sunni+Shiite Turkmen in the 1947 census was 1.1 + 0.9% = 2%, falling behind Christians and Jews as the fifth largest minority group of Iraq.[1] I doubt that their numbers quadrupled in 10 years--Rafy talk 21:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Khashkhamer seal moon worship.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Khashkhamer seal moon worship.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Nazik Al-Malaika02.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nazik Al-Malaika02.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The pictures and names of Iraqis in the infobox is WAY to huge, I am reducing it down to essential ones

I am reducing down the pictures and names of Iraqis in the infobox to essential ones. If users object to the ones that I have removed, please post your disagreement here and we can discuss which ones warrant attention in the infobox.--R-41 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Mola Ali.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mola Ali.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mola Ali.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Mesopotamians as Part of the Iraqi People

On the top-right side of the article there are small pictures of people who are or were part of the Iraqi people and some others. The problem with it is that there was no Iraqi people before mdoern age, for example in ancient Mesopotamia there was no Iraqi people, but rather there were the Assyrians, Kassites and Hurrians, for instance. Moreover, if you asked an ancient Mesopotamian to what people does he/she belong he/she would not answer "to the Iraqi one". BTW, calling a resident of Mesopotamia before the modern age an Iraqi is equivalent to calling Hannibal a Tunisian or calling the last Dacian king, Decebalus, a romanian.

I ask you why people who lived before the existence of the Iraqi people in the article are presented as part of that people. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.219.77 (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions of nomenclature are subjective and complex. The people of the alluvial plain (Babylonia) have referred to their country as Iraq since Parthian-Sassanian times, and the name (Iraq) was synonymous with Babylonia (Babil) and used concurrently with it right through to the 20th century when the state of Iraq was formed. The people of Babylonia, after the demise of the city of Babylon under centuries of foreign occupation, eventually called their country after Erech - which survived much longer than the former capital. Simply because a country/region adopts an alternative name, doesn't make it a different country/region, especially not when both names are used synonymously henceforth.

Pronunciation shifts:

Sumerian: Unug > Akkadian: Uruk > Aramaic: Erech > Persian: Eraq > Arabic: Iraq. Adel Tigris (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right about the fact that there are peoples who have used different names for their homeland in different ages, but you didn't relate to the fact that there were in ancient Mesopotamia more than one people, and that the article relates to them as one. For instance, the article relates to Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, leaders of Lagash, leaders of Uruk and Ali (who was an Arab; not a Mesopotamian!) as Iraqi/Mesopotamian. Moreover, this article sees Abraham (whom I don't think has ever existed) as an Iraqi, although he's considered as the founder of the Jewish people. What's your responese?

Ali settled in Iraq and came to identify with the country. He became a Mesopotamian, and he left a profound legacy on the people of Babylonia. The Akkadians merged with the Sumerians forming the Babylonians, whose country was Babili, later referred to as Iraq, as Erech long outlived Babylon. If you are wanting to remove Abraham, Sarah, I have no objection. Adel (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about the leader of Lagash and the leader of Uruk? Moreover, Saladin, who is considered by the article as part of Iraqi people, is also considered by the writers of this article Kurdish people as part of the Kurdish people. In addition, I'd like you to tell me how do we know that during the high middle ages and end of the middle ages the people of Mesopotamia were a people, rather than a group of people who belong to a greater people? What is the article's evidence to support this claim? I would like to add that there are other people who are considered Iraqi by this article and simultaneously considered as Assyrian or Kurdish by the article about them.

A person can be part of two or more peoples simultaneously. What 'greater people' are you talking about? We know that the people of Mesopotamia were a people during the Middle Ages because they (including Arabic and Aramaic-speakers, and including Muslims, Christians, and Jews) are referred to as (and refer to themselves as) 'Iraqi' in all the literature of the time. That's not to say that they were one monolithic group, but it does tell us that the people (of the alluvial plain in particular) shared a common identification as Iraqis/Mesopotamians. Even the Babylonian Jews of the time (12th century) referred to themselves as "Iraqiyyun" (Iraqis). The following quote describes the Babylonian Jewish community of 12th century Egypt:

"Babylonian Jews, whose separate synagogues in major cities, whose custom of completing the reading of the Torah in one year as opposed to the three-year Palestinian cycle, whose spiritual attachments to the Babylonian yeshivot, and whose self-characterization as Irāqiyyūn set them apart from their Palestinian neighbours."

— Ormsby, Eric Linn (1989). Moses Maimonides and His Time. CUA Press. p. 24.

Being part of one people doesn't preclude being part of another. Adel (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with equaling Mesopotamian peoples with present-day Iraqi people. It is right that ancient Mesopotamians lived (roughly) in the area of present-day Iraq, and ancient Mesopotamians most probably belong to the ancestors of present-day Iraqis. But it is unacademic and enencyclopedic to treat ancient Mesopotamians as Iraqis. Just like Gauls used to live in the area of present-day France and belong to the ancestors of modern French, but are not identic with French. Romans used to live in Italy and belong to the ancestors of modern Italians, but are not identic with Italians. Teutons used to live on the territory of today's Germany and belong to the ancestors of present-day Germans, but they are not identic.

It is greatly astonishing for me to find Gilgamesh, Abraham, and Nebuchadnezzar listed as Iraqis. This is of course blatant original research. I highly doubt that you can find a reliable source describing any of them as Iraqi. I propose that this article focuses on the people that is actually described as Iraqi people in reliable sources. And I require to remove all persons from the infobox that are not Iraqis proper, but Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians etc., especially I take it for granted that (probably) mythological figures like Abraham, Gilgamesh and Ninsun, cannot stand as representatives of a really existing modern people. --RJFF (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is the most finest example of antiquity frenzy on Wikipedia which I've seen in years. It's written by User:Adel Tigris, an Iraqi. First of all, what is purpose of this article? Adel tries to present Iraqis as specific "ethnic group" which is nonsense by all means, not even one scholar claims that. Iraqis imply for citizens of Iraq, country which exist from 1932. There was NO any country called "Iraq" before, and there also wasn't any kind of Iraqi national identity. It's historical fact, which Adel tries to avoid so he consider ancient "Uruk" as only etymological predecessor and "proof" that Iraq existed before 5000 years. Truth is that Uruk-Iraq connection is highly disputable and considered as obsolete by many scholars (Middle Persian ʿErāq is most favored etymology), and there was no any trace of using Iraq (or derivations) in political context for more then 4000 years (from 22th century BC to 1932 AD). For earlier historical periods, we have History of Iraq and similar articles, but Adel and Ashrf1979 have included all famous historical persons from Mesopotamia as "Iraqis" in infobox - including Sumerian and Babylonian kings, even Abraham (see history). --109.60.16.173 (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As I have already argued earlier (see talk page above), the article should focus on the modern Iraqi nation, and should avoid to equal Iraqis with ancient Mesopotamians (for which there is no reliable historic evidence). If we cannot find an agreement with users Adel Tigris and Ashrf1979, I propose to start a WP:RfC to let the user community decide, as there is no WP:Ownership of articles by individual users. Actually, the article could even be merged with Demographics of Iraq, as "Iraqi people" does not refer to an ethnic group, but merely to the population of the country Iraq (which is multi-ethnic). --RJFF (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Iraq's northern minorities; the Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen, each have their own articles and ought not to have been included in this article, which is supposed to represent the ethnic majority Iraqis who speak Iraqi Arabic as their first language. However it should be appreciated that owing to bonds of culture and kinship between the ethnic majority Iraqis and northern minorities; they were included as part of the Iraqi people. This is a problem insofar as it makes the article appear to define Iraqis as citizens - obscuring the ethnic identity and character of the ethnic-majority Iraqis, who are not simply 'citizens' or 'Arabs', but are 'Iraqis' as a people, with a vernacular they call 'Iraqi', a land they've called 'Iraq' since early Christian times, and a culture and identity which is 'Iraqi'.

The Arab people 'panethnic' article does not represent the ethnic majority Iraqis; who have their own unique dialect, culture, history, ancestry, and identity. Arab identity is a component of it, but only a component. Iraq's northern minorities only became 'Iraqi' when the state of Iraq was formed, but Iraq's ethnic majority have always been 'Iraqi'; their vernacular is called Iraqi, their land has been called 'Iraq' since at least the time of Shapur I (3rd century) who used the name. Naming the article 'Iraqi Arabs' is redundant too; Iraqis speak of themselves as "Iraqi people", not "Iraqi Arabs". A hatnote can serve to disambiguate if needed. What I have carefully and conscienciously avoided on this article is any marginalization of Iraq's minorities, but in doing so, the Iraqi majority have been marginalized. Adel (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, what is now Iraq was called Assuristan/Athura until 637 AD, NOT Iraq. Likewise, the majority people were Assyrians untill that time, and the dominant language was East Aramaic/Syriac. To suggest otherwise is Arabism at its most dishonest.

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Three questions:

1. Should this article focus on Iraqi people in the modern sense or should it also cover ancient Mesopotamian peoples who lived on the territory of present-day Iraq in earlier times?

2. (a) Should the infobox only include Iraqis in the modern sense or also ancient Mesopotamians?

2. (b) If the infobox includes ancient Mesopotamians, should it only include historic persons who have evidentially really existed, or should it also include figures who are probably mythologic (Gilgamesh, Ninsun, Abraham, Sarah)? --RJFF (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• My own opinion can be found above in sections #Ancient Mesopotamians as Part of the Iraqi People and #NPOV. Basically I think that if reliable sources do not treat Iraqis and ancient Mesopotamian peoples as one and the same, Wikipedia should not either. And I find it absurd to depict mythologic figures as examples for a real existing nation. --RJFF (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• The demonym "Iraqi" is used to describe the inhabitants of Iraq, a country created by joining three Ottoman Vilayets in the 1920s.[2][3][4] Imho this article should be styled after articles of other peoples of modern multi-ethnic states (see for example Indian people, Israelis, Americans, Belgians, etc.) No doubts some political groups advocate a shared Iraqi national identity (Iraqi nationalism), but most reliable sources break down the population into several distinctive ethnic, religious and linguistic groups.
• I think there are some nicely written and well referenced paragraphs which could be moved to the History of Iraq article. The same argument applies on other controversial articles like the Syrian people.--Rafy talk 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rafy: You cite Indian People as an example of a decent article in this field. Indian people includes listings of people prior to the formation of the Indian state[5] as well as mythological entities such as Deities and avatars [6]. Is it correct to say that you support similar inclusions for the Iraqi people article? Dlv999 (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is absurd and ahistorical to lump persons together into a "people" based merely on arbitrary political boundaries imposed in modern times by Western imperial powers. It is even sillier to then dump mythological figures into that same hopper. There are actual peoples living within the boundaries of the Iraqi state (the Marsh Arabs come immediately to mind); but that's not the same thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• The topic of this article should not be Mesopotamians if no sources are presented for Mesopotamians being referred to as Iraqi.(I left this comment after being noticed about this discussion by RfC bot).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• This article should not include Mesopotamians (Babyloanians, Urukis, Assyrians etc.), or previous inhabitants of the region, prior to creation of modern Iraq in 1920s. Inclusion of previous inhabitants of Iraq into Iraqi nationality is WP:SYNTH and might be a result of Iraqi nationalist thinking, rather than reliable sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Iraq as a country is a modern invention and as such the article should focus on the current people. Referencing previous cultures and linking to the articles such as Assyrians, Mesopotamians etc would make the most sense. my 2 cents. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fitting the article for current consensus

Since the decision has been made to include only Iraqi nationals of the current state (existing from 1920s), we should now change the article description accordingly. For example the lead should say "Iraqi people are Iraqi nationals" and not "natives of Iraq". It should also cover only peoples who have or had Iraqi nationality and not their descendants (like Jews who had Iraqi nationality revoked in 1950s, who are now counting maybe 20 thousands remained at most, but have more than half a million descendants without Iraqi nationality).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

So user "Saimdusan" (who if I may emphasise is not Iraqi nor Semitic and not an Arab) you deleted the "Related Ethnic Group" box. I hope this makes you happy. It seems rather sad that you have to continuously vandalize the article on Iraqi people. WHY don't you three users: 1) Babakexorramdin 2) Ellipi 3) Saimdusan just let this article alone! Stop the vandalism already! None of you is Iraqi and I assume none of you has even been to Iraq! I do not understand why you constantly, over and over and over again have to vandalise this article and try to divide the Iraqi people by saying they are either "not the same due to different religions" or "Arabised Iranians" or that IF Iraqis are just Iraqis their entire culture was "stimulated by the Iranian highland". Please if you are unhappy with yourself do not let your frustration out on this article. In times of such great suffering I think it is a reasonable plea that you at least leave the Iraqi people one thing of which they can be proud of: themselves.

An NO this article should not be merged into the "Demographics of Iraq" article! Germany also has many Turks or Serbs. However they are not found under the "German People" article but under the "Demographics of Germany" article. However Germany is named after the majority group: The Germans. The same should and does hold true for Iraq.

I understand the frustration of the above user. I actually DON'T even understand WHY these three users constantly vandalise this article! I think this is an article for the people of ܥܝܪܐܩ/العراق.

Arabic is the majority language, Kurdish is spoken by approximately 20%, South Azeri (called "Turkmen" locally) is spoken by 5% - 10% of people, the Ethnic Turcomans, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is spoken by 3% - 5% of people, mainly Ethnic Assyrian Christians. Mandaic (and other Neo-Aramaic varieties), Shabaki, Armenian, Roma, and Persian are spoken by small numbers of between 25,000 and 100,000 each. There may be a few Chechen, Georgian, and speakers of other Caucasian languages also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.169.200 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me set the record straight: I didn't delete the "related ethnic groups" section out of any malice against the Iraqi people. I mean, who would? This is not a discrimination issue. I removed the section because I read on the talk page of the ethnic groups WikiProject that there was a policy change against it because of its unwieldiness as a category (it changes so much from ethnicity to ethnicity - and we can never decide whether genetic, geographic, cultural or linguistic criteria should be used). It seems apparent to me that there was in fact no policy change, and if there has been it's failed spectacularly! I've checked through the archives and this "change in policy" doesn't seem to exist - which is curious, because I remember clearly someone posting "no more related ethnic groups" or something to that effect somewhere.

In fact, from what I can see the policy is to do have a bottom-up, case by case by case decision on what to include in the infobox. My bad. Here is the edit you took issue with, I presume: [7]. I hardly remember even making it, so please don't take this as some sort of anti-Iraqi bigotry on my part.

Please don't make this a race/ethnicity issue, either. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia, or really any context. If non-Semites are interested enough in Arab culture to contribute to Arab-related articles I don't see why their edits should automatically be discredited. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 00:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Having re-checked the edit logs I can see that one of the things that would've bothered me about the infobox as it was was the equivalence between Iraqis and Semites. As you know, many Iraqis are Iranian (Kurds) or Turkic (Iraqi Turkmen) speakers. Hence, it's wrong to say the "related groups" of Iraqis are just Semites without any mention of the linguistic affiliation of more than 20% of the population. The infobox as it stands now is better, but it's still a bit unwieldy because of the dearth of 'relatives', it's a bit too extensive for an infobox, methinks. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 00:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite often "Semites" are treated as a racial group rather than a lingual one. Considering that an important part of this article is about genetics, it's obvious that most of these genes predates the time semetic languages started to evolve, thus this point should be treated differently. Streamwave (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Saddam Hussein

What about Saddam Hussein ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.8.207 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Arabist Bias

There seems to be a MASSIVE Arabist bias in this article. It starts off simply talking about Arabs. No mention is given to the still extant Pre-Arab peoples of Iraq at all. An impression is also given that Iraqis were majority Arabs as far back as 200 AD, which is clearly a nonsense given that the Syriac language was prevailant across the region. This article should give due weight to ALL of the ethnic groups of Iraq, and if we are to mention when Arabs first arrived, then we MUST also give due mention to when the Assyrians and Iranic peoples such as Kurds arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieDrood (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iraqis. 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/20110716163637/http://www.iomlondon.org/doc/mapping/IOM_IRAQ.pdf to http://www.iomlondon.org/doc/mapping/IOM_IRAQ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527021202/http://www.simplysharing.com/sumerians.htm to http://www.simplysharing.com/sumerians.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraqis. 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/20101202071653/http://www.aaiusa.org/pages/demographics/ to http://www.aaiusa.org/pages/demographics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)