Talk:Iraq/Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

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

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)

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))

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)