Talk:Iraqi legislative election, 2005/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Iraqi interim prime minister not to run in election?

I seem to vaguely remember that before the 'transfer of sovereignty' from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi Interim Authority, there was a promise that the interim prime minister and his team would not run in the election when it comes. This seems to have been forgotten, but I could not find a news report to support the promise (from Lexis-Nexis or from the web). Can you?

I got as close as: http://www.state.gov/p/32467.htm http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2721321

– Kaihsu 15:22, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Can Saddam Hussein vote?

Is Saddam Hussein allowed to vote? I doubt he'd even want to, but he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Technically he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. While most democracratic countries don't allow convicted felons to vote while they in prison they do allow those incarnerated awaiting trial. (Alphaboi867 06:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Not sure but I don't think it matters pertaining to the article. __earth 07:50, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm honestly curious now. I doubt it as they would probably have made a spectacle out of it. If we can find an answer, IMHO it would be more appropriate to put that info under the Saddam Hussein article. --Bletch 12:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I live and Canada and felon are allowed to vote. Actually I think this is a pretty straightforward warrant of democracy. Imagine a law is very discriminatory in it's application (it exists, yes). If a majority is sent in prison with that law, should'nt felon have a voice that says their follony is not a fellony? For what matters here, I have doubt about the sentence: While most democracratic countries don't allow convicted felons to vote while they are in prison.--Martin.komunide.com 15:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I read in the newspaper (can't remember which one though) that Saddam is eligible for vote, but he would not be able to because of "logistical reasons" (ie nobody knows where he is now). I think it was a statement from some Iraqi government official. Hope someone can find a link.Orzetto 17:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to this he could have if he had been able to get to a polling station in person. (Alphaboi867 04:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Expatriates permitted to vote?

Why is it that Iraqi expatriates are permitted to vote? This is not the practice of other democratic nations. Also, will iraqis living in the United States or Europe be permitted to vote in the next Iraqi election?

Don't most countries permit expats to vote? The US lets citizens residing overseas to file absentee votes. I think that the big difference is that with Iraq, there are actual voting stations outside the country, but that is because it is more practical to errect a couple dozen stations than air mail planes of ballots for counting in Baghdad. --Bletch 13:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do some Iraqis want to ruin the election? --NoPetrol 17:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the same reasons that the Shining Path tried to ruin elections in Peru during the 1990s. The Iraqi resistance is in an armed struggle against the occupation. Because the occupation is the effective sponsor of the elections, they are not perceived as legitimate, and thus according to them should be boycotted. It is a pattern typical in countries that have armed insurgencies. --Bletch 18:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. The so-called resistance represents the Sunni oligarchy who have run Iraq since 1918 and are now being deprived of power. Any fair election in Iraq will deliver power to the Shia majority, which is why there has never been one until now. Adam 16:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

I think we should put this in the article in the form of a quote by an Iraqi who is against the election, so people do not just jump to the typical Fox News conclusion that it is because they "hate freedom" or something like that. --NoPetrol 23:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The gangs of fascist thugs who make up the so-called "resistance" do hate freedom, except for their own freedom to rule and plunder the country and oppress the majority of its people as they have done since 1918, and particularly since 1958. By all means find a quote illustrating their views. Adam 02:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam, Wikipedia is about expressing as fair and unbiased a world view as possible. I understand your sentiments regarding the insurgency/resistance, but this is not an op-ed page, try to keep your emotions and gut reactions out of the picture. Mark 23:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

¿Why do people risk their lives to vote in a fixed election?

Since Walden Wally O'Dell fixed the US-election, he will surely fix the Iraqi election. These quotations pretty much say it all:

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything" -- Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." -- Walden Wally O'Dell, Chairman and CEO of Diebold.Com -- Self-service, security, election and service solutions

--

Ŭalabio 20:15, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Irrelevant and fallacious. You can post all you want on Democratic Underground about how you think Bush stole the election, but don't fill up Talk pages with your theories, especially ones not even related to the subject. --Slowking Man 22:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Gorbachev seems to believe that the elections are fake. I read your userpage. I once liked the US Republican Party. It had great Presidents like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, et cetera, but as far as I am concerned it died when Shrubya forced McCain to drop out of the primary in 2000 with those lies he recycled on Kerry in 2004 -- I hate fascists and chickenhawks, but now, we have a nest of fascistic chickenhawks running the country. Both Lincoln and Eisenhower tried to warn us:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- President Abraham Lincoln

On 1961-01-18T01:30:00 UTC, President Dwight David Eisenhower who fought against fascism tried to warn the United States of America with a speech about the danger of the growing Military-Industrial Complex.

We should have listened. I used to like my country. Democracy was great, even with the flaws such as no instant runoff and that electoral college. It is all so tragic.

¡If President Dwight David Eisenhower would be alive today, he would put those fascist chickenhawks in their place!:

Conscientious Objectors -- good: If everyone would be a conscientious objector, we would have no war.

Patriotic Soldiers -- good: If it were not for Patriotic soldiers, we would all speak Japanese.

Chickenhawks -- bad: Chickenhawks are mere vermin.

President Dwight David Eisenhower would not just hate the chickenhawks because they are vermin, but also because they are his enemies the fascists and they ruined his party and country.

--

Ŭalabio 02:45, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

That's great and all, but, again, this isn't the place to have a debate about American politics. If you want to debate me, do it in IRC or someplace else, rather than filling up this Talk page for an article that has little to do with American politics. --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Open or close list system

¿Is Iraq using open or close list system?

Closed list. (Alphaboi867 17:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC))

UN Monitoring?

The UN could not because it was involved in organizing the elections.

Is this statement technically true? If taken literally, that would imply that that the UN could not be involved, even if the Iraqi resistance simply did not exist. To my knowledge, the lack of monitors is a direct consequence of the Iraqi resistance's promise to kill all involved. --Bletch 13:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was reported on 20 Jan by Mark Turner of the Financial Times that, The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections, and no other international organisation has stepped in to offer assistance. But he doesn't quote anyone on this. He does however quote "one UN diplomat" as saying, “Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism ... The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there.” Which isn't very conclusive. In the end he goes onto quote Simon Chesterman, head of the Institute for International Law and Justice at New York University, “Elections have become viewed as the test of political transformation, and the only way to verify that test is to have some kind of independent analysis ... The fact that security in Iraq is so bad that no one will go to observe the elections suggests that even if they pass without incident, they have failed ... Elections whose results are not believed are worse than no elections at all. If, when results come out, there is a dispute, and there is no way of resolving that impartially, there is a great danger that instead of resolving political tensions in Iraq it will create them.” [1] —Christiaan 18:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This confirms what I've suspected; I'll change that sentence accordingly. --Bletch 18:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There have also been accusations of a propaganda campaign surrounding the vote. [8] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1402922,00.html) Sami Ramadani, an Iraqi exile and senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, has pointed to what he describes as "uncanny similarities" between reports of these elections and a report in the New York Times published on 4 September 1967, headed, "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror" and goes on to say that U.S. "officials were surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting."[9] (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7943.htm)

I am proposing to delete this paragraph. Does anyone seriously suggest that journalists looked up the 1967 NYT to find out how to describe the Iraq election? This guy is obviously a fringe figure. Much more representative academic opinion can be found if we want some. Adam 09:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know; opponents of the elections and/or the invasion in general (such as those at Daily Kos) have advanced this as a theory, so I think it should be at least mentioned. --Slowking Man 09:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
All else being equal, I'd prefer to err on the side of including too much information rather than too little. IIRC I moved this paragraph to the section on reactions and criticisms, and this paragraph certainly qualifies as such. Let the reader decide if there is merit or not. --Bletch 09:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we required to report every nonsensical conspiracy theory? I don't think so. The reason the reportage is similar is obviously because the circumstances are similar. Adam 09:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, but many prominent people have incessantly drawn analogies between Iraq and Vietnam. I'm not condoning their views, but I feel that they are visible enough to be mentioned. --Slowking Man 10:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

of course there are analogies (not that they belong in this article), but it is absurd to suggest that journalists looked up the 1967 NYT to write their articles. Adam 10:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stating results as fact when we don't know the facts NPOV dispute

There have been a number of attempts by editors, including Bletch and SimonP, to use statements made by various people involved in this election as facts. When I have attempted to add qualifiers such as changing "Early returns show that" to "Early returns have been said to show that" I have been accused of using weasel words. If these are weasel words, which is debatable, then simply reverting back to the earlier edit is not customary practice. The customary practice is to cite sources or quote people, which they've also shown reluctance to do. In an election such as this, where there were no international observers and propaganda is rife it is extremely important to be clear about who is saying what rather than simply parroting statements as fact. —Christiaan 19:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that the sentence in question is about the reports themselves, the already well addressed issue of the lack of international observers is clearly orthogonal. That said, I would not object to a more precise wording, provided that it is free of weasel words. --Bletch 22:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The sentence is not about the reports themselves. This is exactly the problem I have with the sentance. If it were about the reports themselves it would, for instance, say "Early reports..." instead of "Early returns...". Let's quote people, cite sources - this is the obvious forward. —Christiaan 22:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are these extremiests telling obvious lies and getting their way? Can someone explain that to me? Please? Pellaken 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

huh? zen master T 23:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zen and Christiaan want us to believe there is a giant media conspiracy to decieve the world about the elections, which they apparently believe either didn't happen at all or were a huge fraud. So we are apparently not allowed to cite reputable media reports on the election results as they emerge. We have to say "It is said that it is said that it is said that." This is not a standard which applies anywhere else. We don't have to say "It is said that there was a tsunami in Indonesia." The article currently cites reputable media reports on the election results, and attempts by Zen and Christiann to impose their nonsense and conspiracy theories should be reverted. Adam 01:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame you're so intent on parroting the media and authorities. You can put up your straw man arguments that "I believe they didn't happen or that they were a huge fraud". The truth, however, is that I don't know and this is reflected in my edits. It seems you think you know better, and this is most definitely reflected in your edits. Rest assured I will attempt to ensure that your POV statements are cited, quoted or deleted. —Christiaan 01:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When we are writing about current events such as an election, who else are we supposed to cite other than "media and authorities"? Do you have any evidence that the media reports in the article are false, or that the Iraq Election Commission is making up the results it is announcing? If you have, let's see it. Adam 01:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you continue to present straw man arguments? You do not cite and quote people, you parrot them. Your rhetorical argument doesn't work, I could equally ask, "do you have any evidence that media reports are true, or that the Iraq Election Commission is not making up the results it is announcing." But I don't because it is equally as stupid as your question. There are no interntional observers involved so the simple fact is that we can only quote and cite people who have a vested interest in the outcome. —Christiaan 01:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is complete crap. I do not "parrot" anything. I, like everyone else at Wikpedia, cite reports. It is just nonsense to say that the media has a "vested interest" in somehow faking the election results. Most of them opposed the invasion and hate Bush as much as you do. But they are professional journalists and they report what they see. I am not going to respond to any more of this rubbish. Adam 01:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone pick Adam's toys up and chuck em in the trash on the way out? —Christiaan 01:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why should the NPOV tag remain? The issue has been dealt with to the seeming satisfaction of all but one user, a user that has presented no evidence for their assertions and whose addition is directly counter to long standing Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia accepts mainstream news sources as valid sources in every other article. If you disagree with this feel free to begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cite sources, but holding a major article hostage is not the proper way to proceed. - SimonP 03:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

gorby quotation caveat

Hey Adam, why do you persist in qualifying the gorby quatation? Also, stating in the check in comments that he "doesn't know what he is taking about" is POV, right? Someone stating democracy can not be imposed with guns and tanks is a perfectly acceptable remote analysis, right? Why should someone have to go to iraq to see the obviousness of it? Even W has said he understands that people do not like to be occupied. If you are so keen on caveating everything would you mind if I or someone added caveats all over the article? The point of a "reactions" is to be free of caveats, various reasonable opinions are presented without commentary, the way you have caveated it I believe is POV. zen master T 02:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to be "POV" in comments, just not in the article. Caveats are reasonable to place a remark in context, so that readers can assess its value. The fact is that Gorbechev is an embittered old fool who knows nothing about Iraq, or about democratic elections for that matter. Readers should be given some indication of his total lack of qualifications to comment. If you want to add caveats to other comments, you are free to do so, and if I or others want to debate them we can do so. Adam 02:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, a "reactions" section is not the place to be qualifying anything. If someone was criticizing Gorby specifically for saying what he did when he did it then you'd have a point but they are not, you are making up instant criticisms. A reactions section is meant to state criticisms, not present facts. I may remove or tone down your woefully unnecessary caveat, unless Christian or someone does it first. zen master T 03:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Zen-master with one addition - qualifications would be appropriate if the information in the qualifications is not readily known. Anybody can go and read Gorby's article and find out that he hasn't held office in 14 years. If the qualifications were something very specific to the situation (like lets say he had a financial interest in the Iraq election failing), then they would be appropriate. I would also like to add a statement saying "It is unclear whether Gorbachev is alledging bonafide fraud or just ineffectuality." When I read the quote, I assumed the latter but it seems that my view is not shared by everybody. --Bletch 15:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've spoken too soon :-). It seems that the statement was elaborated further since I last read it; making my new qualification unnecessary. --Bletch 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure gorbachev went by the title of president?

International observation

Simon and Christaan seem to be in a mini edit war about international observers. While I disagree with Christiaan's apparent black and white assessement about the lack of international observation, I do believe that it is important to make it clear that UN observation is not as directly present in this election that it was in recent elections in say, Venezuela. There must be a way to combine both of your assessments in a NPOV way. --Bletch 20:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I firmly believe the passage should be removed. Christaan's paragraph is factually incorrect: standard observers were not absent. Committees of election commissions from a variety of countries is exactly how most disputed elections are observed. The participation of embassy staff and some UN personnel is already mentioned elsewhere in the section, while the assertion that the unusual circumstances made "it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain independent election results" is not backed up by any evidence. - SimonP 21:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
While it is true that is international observation in this election, I also think that it is certainly fair to say that the level of international observation is not to the same caliber of recent elections in which the UN has been involved. Reading the section without Christiaan's paragraph now, one might think that this election was just as intricately monitored as the one in Venezuela, minus Jimmy Carter. I'm not saying that the paragraph should stay in as is; I'm just saying that this issue warrants elaboration. For example, what is the ratio of observers to voters in this election, compared to the Venezuela and the US elections? Is this ratio the same in Basra as in Fallujah? I don't have numbers but I suspect not. --Bletch 05:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In any case, just because there were no UN monitors it does not follow that the true results of the election cannot be known. The UN does not monitor Australian elections, but that does not prevent us knowing the results. Of course the elections in Iraq are being held in far less favourable circumstances (thanks to Zen and Christiaan's friends in the "resistance"), but it still has to be shown the elections are in some way fraudulent or the results somehow suspect. As I argue below, the fact that the US-favoured Allawi list is losing the elections seems to be a good argument that the elections are being reasonably fairly conducted. Adam 05:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify my opinion, IMHO I believe that the fact that UN monitoring was weak is worthy of inclusion in and of itself, whether or not there was any alledged fraud, either on the part of the US or any other party in Iraq. Granted, this page on recent elections down under does not have a big section on monitoring, but it is fair to say the current state in affairs in Iraq is hardly like those in Australia. --Bletch 05:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zen and Christiaan and others who apparently think the elections are all a Bush plot should pay attention to the results as they emerge. It is clear that the US-preferred list of Allawi is losing badly to Sistani's party, and that Sistani will be the real effective ruler of post-election Iraq, probably in alliance with the Kurds. So if the US is rigging the elections they are not doing a very good job. In fact the whole history of the occupation has been the failure of the US to get the leadership they want. Their first choice was Challabi, and where is he now? Their next choice was Allawi, and he is being rejected by the Shia voters. All this is evidence that the US has consistently mishandled the politics of post-Saddam Iraq, but it also refutes the view that the US is manipulating everything that happens there. Iraq is now a live political community, which outside powers cannot control. Adam 00:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I did believe in conspiracies I wouldn't be naive enough to think they only go one layer deep. So that's how it's going to be spun next week, that the Iraqi voters have rejected the US? Does that mean the troops are coming home? zen master T 01:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Sistani's party wins the elections, that will be a rejection of the preferred US "moderate Shia" political solution for Iraq, yes. Sistani of course wants foreign troops out as soon as possible, but not before there is a Shia-led Army in place, strong enough to deal with the Sunni Baathist-Islamo-fascist gangs of the so-called resistance. That will take another year or so.

But of course that is not the central point I was making. My point was that the defeat of Allawi's list shows that the US has not rigged the election. Do you accept that or not? Adam 01:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voter Turnout

Does this mean 72% of the country's population voted or that 72% of registered voters voted? Also, has anyone seen a breakdown of this such as between men/women, Sunni/Shiite, etc.? Jsan 00:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's a percentage of total population (that percent has been revised downward, however). The election commission says they need more time for a detailed analysis of voters. [2] --Slowking Man 00:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
72 percent is of course the percentage of the registered voters only. It could not be, even in principle, the full percentage because the registered voters themselves are probably less than 72% of the population. More realistic newer estimates talk about 60 percent of registered voters which is about 8 million of people. The turnout will be clearly smaller among Sunnis. For example, Saddam's Tikrit did not vote at all, roughly speaking. The men and women are probably balanced. --Lumidek 01:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I just read [3] and it says "Electoral officials estimated that up to eight million Iraqis voted - more than 60% of those registered." So I'm changing it on the article. --TristanChambers

It's a shame this article simply parrots the corporate media on voter turnout with "Early estimates put the turnout...between...". Whose estimates?? The simple fact is there no way to verify the numbers because independent observers were not allowed. And the people giving these "estimates" have vested interest in the figure being known as high, whether it was high or not. This report from an independent journalist in Iraq contains:

“Higher than expected turnout,” US mainstream television media blared, some citing a figure of 72%, others 60%.
What they didn’t tell you was that this figure was provided by Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) before the polls had even closed.
"When asked about the accuracy of the estimate of voter turnout during a press conference, Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying that a closer estimate was lower than his initial estimate and would be more like 60% of registered voters.
The IECI spokesman said his previous figure of 72% was “only guessing” and “was just an estimate,” which was based on “very rough, word-of mouth estimates gathered informally from the field. It will take some time for the IECI to issue accurate figures on turnout.”
Referencing both figures, Ayar then added, “Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over ... It's too soon to say that those were the official numbers.”
But this isn’t the most important misrepresentation the mainstream media committed.
What they also didn’t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country.
In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation.
And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later.

—Christiaan 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And the article states that the turnout numbers are estimates. We won't know the turnout until the ballots are counted. If you want to expand the estimated range, go ahead. --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
No will we never "know" the turnout. We will only know what those in control say the turnout was. —Christiaan 18:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The same argument can be applied to every election in history. --Slowking Man 06:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Voter turnout is a sensitive topic for obvious reasons. I've moved this section from the article so we can discuss its veracity before slotting something more satisfactory in:

The Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq stated that in Shia areas of the south and in the Kurdistan Autonomous Region turnout was estimated at 90 percent. [4] By most accounts, In the Sunni areas north and west of Baghdad, where the armed groups are based, turnout was low, but even in some of these areas it was higher than expected. Many Sunni supported calls to boycott the elections, while others were presumably prevented from voting by fears of violence. In Ba'athist strongholds such as Tikrit and Fallujah, few people voted.

From the source quoted in the middle of the paragraph (BBC News) I could find, Iraq's electoral commission held a news conference 90 minutes before polls closed to say turnout was estimated at 72%, with 90% or more in some Shia areas. This points to Farid Ayar's 'guesstimate' of 72% which is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. Where does this 90% figure come from? Who said it? Let's quote who said, not parrot the BBC. As for the other comments on turnout of various sections of Iraq society, who said these things? Where do they come from? Let's quote people instead of making such sweeping statements without verification. —Christiaan 19:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading the BBC article, the 90% figure was a preliminary figure just as much as the 72% figure, from the same sources. To make my opinion more clear, I have zero problem identifying both numbers as being preliminary figures by the electoral commission (in fact, IMHO the article made that very clear from the very beginning, though you may disagree.) As for evidence of low Sunni turnout compared with the Kurds/Shiites, off hand a Google News search uncovers these links:
My beef is not with the fact that these are preliminary numbers, but that of where these preliminary numbers come from. Who said them? Rather than parroting reporters let's quote the people who are purported to have said these things. When propaganda is rife quoting specific people is all the more important. —Christiaan 20:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In that case, you should have zero problem with the 90% figure, because that was from the same press release as the 72% figure and from the same people. I would not object if the 90% figure is merged in with the 72% lines (e.g. 'A figure of 72 percent turnout...' --> 'A figure of 72 percent turnout, with 90 percent turnout in the Shiite areas..."). Is this acceptable? If so, the next thing to work on would be getting info in about poor voter turnout in the Sunni areas (unless you believe that is a myth) --Bletch 20:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which press release? Is anyone quoted in it? I've tried looking on the IECI website but it seems to be down at the moment (Neither Google nor Archive.org seem to have a cache of it either). —Christiaan 21:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please read the BBC article again. If that is problematic, is the relevant excerpt: Iraq's electoral commission held a news conference 90 minutes before polls closed to say turnout was estimated at 72%, with 90% or more in some Shia areas. But electoral official Adil al-Lami did not say how these figures had been reached. Since Wikipedia does not have a policy banning sources that are not primary source material, nothing that you have said justifies censoring this information, particularly if the origins are made clear. --Bletch 21:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I haven't tried to ban this information and neither have I tried to censor it, so can we dispense with the straw man arguments? Your last comment alludes to exactly what I'm trying to do: make sure the origins are made clear. I'm happy for this figure to be in the article so long as a BBC News correspondent is noted as the source (i.e. not simply parroted with, "estimates were put at ...") and that Adil al-Lami is noted as not saying how the figures had been reached. As I said earlier there is a good reason for using primary sources in this case, because of the problem of propaganda that surrounds such a topic. I would prefer that we tracked down a primary source or at least a direct quote from Adil al-Lami. There must be one somewhere. —Christiaan 22:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can you find the Wikipedia policy that states that information cannot be placed in Wikipedia unless it directly references a primary source, direct quote from a named correspondant, or the equivalent? If you cannot, then there is no justifiable reason to block the entry of the information question. I think that we are in agreement that primary sources are better, and I would prefer direct quotes and have no problem placing a primary source in preference over a secondary source, but we cannot let the lack of a primary source keep this information out of the article. Reading the current version, you would have no reason to suspect that the voter turnout was different in Fallujah, Basra, and Suleimaniya. --Bletch 23:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see we're not quite dispensing with the straw man arguments. I am not blocking this information, as my entry above clearly states, I would prefer to use a primary source in this case. I've explained above what I'd be happy with in regard to the BBC and the 90% figure. As for information on other demographics, from the article:
By most accounts, In the Sunni areas north and west of Baghdad, where the armed groups are based, turnout was low, but even in some of these areas it was higher than expected. Many Sunni supported calls to boycott the elections, while others were presumably prevented from voting by fears of violence. In Ba'athist strongholds such as Tikrit and Fallujah, few people voted.''
At the very least we need to cite sources for this info, and better yet quote people. As it stands it's simply the parroting of the media, who have parroted officials. —Christiaan 00:31, 4 Feb 2005
Once again I ask you, please explain what Wikipedia policy prohibits the utilization of secondary sources, as long as such secondary sources are plainly identified. The boogeyman of 'parroting the media' is not a valid reason to block those sources. --Bletch 09:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bletch, pray do tell me where I have said there is such a policy and where I have said such a policy applies to this information??? —Christiaan 09:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Read your messages above. You pretty much said that until a primary source could be found, you did not want that information in the article above. That said, I have no problem with your change as of 09:46, 4 Feb 2005, and am very pleased at your apparent change of heart. --Bletch 09:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was no change of heart Bletch. Try reading what people write rather than trying to read into what they write. I didn't "pretty much say", I said I "preferred", and I was very explicit about the circumstances under which having this info would be fine with me. In case you're having difficulty, which you do seem to be having, here's what I wrote above:
I'm happy for this figure to be in the article so long as a BBC News correspondent is noted as the source (i.e. not simply parroted with, "estimates were put at ...") and that Adil al-Lami is noted as not saying how the figures had been reached. —Christiaan 19:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When are next elections?

Does anyone know when the next two elections are going to take place? 69.212.73.96 02:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is supposed to be another election in December 2005. Mark 23:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page name

i moved this page to Iraqi parliamentary election, 2005 in accordance to wikipedia convention--Jiang 03:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is that a good idea? Is the new "National Assembly" going to be a real parliament? I thought it was just an interim body that would write the constitution. --Jfruh 00:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It will function as a parliament AND right a new constitution. The new page name is apprpriate. (Alphaboi867 02:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))

A Constituent Assembly is not the same thing as a Parliament, but if it is true that this body is empowered to legislate as well as write a constitution, then the title will do, although I think Iraqi legislative election, 2005 would conform to the standard better. I prefer to restrict the term "parliament" to Westminster-system legislatures. Adam 02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

It is above all a constituant assembly and to label this as mere parliamentary ellections is misleading. Further there are likely to be parliamentary elections at the end of the year. National Assembly Elections or Constiuant Assembly Elctions are possible tittles but not the one we have IMHODejvid 21:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

44 dead voters = disrupted election?

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

Disruption of election

I wrote: "Armed Islamist and Ba'athist groups, which have carried out a campaign of bombings and assassinations in Iraq since the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003 (and are collectively known as the Iraqi resistance), threatened to disrupt the elections by suicide bombing and other violent tactics, but a rigid security clampdown succeeded in preventing major disruptions of the polling."

It is objected that because 44 people were killed by the "resistance", this last statement is untrue. But the criterion for judgement whether there was "major disruption" is not how many people were killed, but whether voting went ahead in relative security in most of the country, which it did. All news sources, even anti-American ones like the BBC, concede this. The "resistance" promised to "wash the streets with blood" etc etc. In a country of 20 million people, with a "resistance" capable of major acts of terrorism, killing only 44 people represents a failure. My text is a true statement and I will revert edits that assert otherwise. Adam 13:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not about the body count it's about 44+ (plus injured) voters being denied the right to vote by violence. What would happen in a western country if 44+ people were killed while voting after a nationwide 3 day clamp down where driving wasn't even permitted?
I'd hardly call the BBC an anti American news source. With many alternative sources claiming the entire election was fake and the the 60-72% turnout figures having little credibility I think at the very minimum we need some sort of balance to the statement "succeeded in preventing major disruptions". 44 dead + scores injured in 9 separate attacks (shutting down 9+ polling stations) is a major disruption, certainly it is disputable so both sides should be included in the article. I didn't bother cleaning up your other edits from earlier today that seemed rather pro "everything is peachy in iraq", I will add more to the criticisms section and move it up in the article. zen master T 13:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone provide citations for the various turnout percentages, including the 90% southern/Shia turnout percentage? zen master T 15:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


To take Zen's points in order:

  • If 44 people were murdered by gangs of anti-democratic thugs in an election in a western country, that would be very unfortunate, but it would not invalidate the elections. Hundreds of people are killed in election day violence at every election in India, and many are also killed in Filipino elections, but those elections are still judged free and fair. That the "resistance" murdered 44 Iraqis trying to take part in democratic elections in no way invalidates the statement that the election took place without major disruptions.
It's not just about the number of people killed it's the manner in which even few people were "disrupted" (e.g. being killed because they wanted to vote) zen master T
  • Who exactly are these "sources" claiming that "the entire election was a fake"?
I can provide many, the one in the article currently is Gorbachev but that seems to exist only to allow for red baiting. zen master T
  • All statements about turnout in the election are of course estimates at this stage. But I have not seen anyone say that the turnout was below 50% of registered voters, and most sources say it was over 60%. The BBC ([5]) says "about 60%". The 90% figure for some Shia areas also comes from the BBC ([6]). Given that the "resistance" threatened to murder anyone who dared to vote, I think that's pretty commendable. Adam 15:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You are presumming we can trust election results, there are numerous articles on wikipedia about controversies surrounding just the 2004 US election. zen master T 15:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think any fair-minded reader will see how feeble Zen's answers are. He cannot provide any evidence that the elections were "seriously disrupted." His only "source" for the allegation that the elections were a fake is Gorbachev, who has no knowledge or expertise in the matter. His only response to my citations on turnout is an irrelevant comment about the US elections. I think it is clear that his agenda is ideological not factual. Adam 15:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section

Just because you don't think gorby is relevant doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism. If such official criticism by former world leaders exists then they are fair game on wikipedia according to policy I believe. We can pursue an RFC if you disagree? I can find more citations or citations more to your liking if you would like to have them added to the article? zen master T 15:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In what sense are Gorbachev's comments "official"? He has held no office since 1991. I ask again, what standing does he have in judging whether an election in Iraq is a fake or not? I challenge you to produce a quote from someone with (a) some knowledge and (b) some standing who says the election was a fake or that the turnout figures are lies (as you have claimed). Adam 16:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the criticism exists (especially from a nobel peace prize winning famous world leader) it is acceptable on wikipedia despite your attempt to make it seem irrelevant. Please point to a wikipedia policy that justifies your unilateral removal? We can take this matter up with an RFC if you would like to? zen master T 16:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that (a) you can't answer my questions (b) you can't back up your claims (c) you have no idea what you are talking about (d) your agenda here is purely political. I will therefore revert your edits until you desist. Adam 16:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you don't accept my evidence (gorby link) it makes it hard for me to "back up my claims" to your liking. Basically, any article on wikipedia is allowed to have a criticisms section. Your agenda is to make the "official" results seem apolitical when there is actually much dispute. zen master T 16:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to tell me

  • in what sense are Gorbachev's comments "official"?
  • what does Gorbachev know about Iraqi elections?
  • who apart from Gorbachev says the elections were a fake? (You said you had "many" sources - let's see one of them)
  • who apart from you has said that the turnout figures are lies? You demanded citations and I gave you citations. Let's see your citations now.

Adam 16:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't care enough to war for its insertion, but as long as there is a Criticisms section, perhaps we should include the opinion of an Al'Qaida affiliate:

A statement attributed to an al-Qaida affiliate dismissed Sunday's elections as "theatrics" and promised to continue waging "holy war" against the Americans and their Iraqi allies.
The purported al-Qaida statement appeared Monday on an Islamist Web site.
"These elections and their results ... will increase our strength and intention to getting rid of injustice," the statement said. [

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050201130760] That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to include Gorbachev's opinion of the election, just as newspapers sometimes cite Jimmy Carter's opposition to the war. [7] --cprompt 16:27, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

By all means include the al-Qaida quote. It is clear what al-Qaida's standing is. I still want to know what Gorbachev's standing is. Jimmy Carter at least goes and observes elections. My argument with Zen is that he wants to cite Gorbachev's (ignorant and foolish) opinion as evidence that the elections were fake. Adam 16:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Gorby's comments do not have to be "official" in your sense of the word to be acceptable on wikipedia.
  • "violence was less than expected" is much better than "there were no major disruptions" POV wise. zen master T 16:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You said his comments were "official." Are you now admitting that was incorrect?

I am still waiting for answers to these questions:

  • who apart from Gorbachev says the elections were a fake? (You said you had "many" sources - let's see one of them)
  • who apart from you has said that the turnout figures are lies? You demanded citations and I gave you citations. Let's see yours now.

I think it is clear that you haven't answered these questions because you can't, which means you lied when you said you had "many" sources. Adam 16:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Violence was less than expected" sounds like a matter of style, although there is some change in meaning too. To say "there were no major disruptions" means that voting wasn't heavily disrupted. To say "violence was less than expected" just means that violence fell beneath expectations. If expectations were that 80% of voters would be attacked, and only 75% were attacked, Zen-master's statement would still hold true. It sounds like more is being said when you say that major disruptions were averted. --cprompt 16:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

It is true that there was less violence than expected, but that isn't the point at issue. The issue is whether the elections went ahead without major disruptions, which I assert and Zen denies. I am still waiting for him to provide some evidence for this, other than a fatuous quote from an irrelevant person. Until he does I will revert his edits. Adam 16:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the page is protected now. The sooner that the conflits are resolved, the sooner we can continue editing. Zen-master, do you still disagree with using the phrase "there were no major disruptions?" Or can we focus on whether or not Gorbachev's quote belongs in the article? Adam, under what conditions would you feel a quote from Gorbachev is acceptable? cprompt 17:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be resolved by qualifying the statement further? I'm inclined to agree with the statement that "there were no major disruptions", but that is because most of the news/editorials that I've read had me expecting Armageddon on Earth. Perhaps we can make the statement less relativistic by stating things in terms of absolutes. Perhaps something along the lines of "During the day, casualties ranged in the dozens. These casualties were killed by insurgents outside of the polling places delivering on their stated promise to kill people participating in the vote. On the other hand, no polling stations were actual scenes of combat during the day". Let the reader decide if this constitutes a lack of major disruptions. Similarly, IMHO Gorby's quote should be left in (assuming that it is true). Let the reader decide if Gorby is worthwhile to listen to. --Bletch 18:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bletch, an absolute statement is best. Adam and Zen are fighting over statements which both demonstrate personal bias. These disputes are counterproductive. Also, Gorbachev is a respected political figure, so it makes sense to quote him if he has offered an opinion. Mark 23:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

additional criticisms and official results refutation citations and links

Why is a link of gorby criticizing the election not acceptable? I would support the removal of the al queda election criticism info, what do others think? Here are more links and info:

  • Insuregents still disrupting elections [8]
  • "Iraq's Non-Election" [9]
  • Turnout was really 57% [10]
  • "International community welcomes Iraq election while voicing concerns" (the article currently does not include any concerns) [11]
  • Turkish prime minister "sharply criticized the US-leg coalition in neighbouring Iraq on Tuesday and said that low voter turnout by some groups in Iraqi elections could skew the results and lead to chaos" [12]
  • Turkey slams US for failing to curb Iraq Kurds, low turnout in Kurdish areas [13]
How can a quote from Al Qaeda possibly be irrelevant and a Gorby link relevant? If anything, the Al Qaeda is more important because they actually have some involvement. That said, IMHO there is room for both. --Bletch 18:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying Al Qaeda criticism isn't relevant strictly speaking, I am saying it's akin to red baiting, the presumed goal by the person that included it is to lump all critics of the iraq election in as they were supporting Al Qaeda. The Al Qaeda criticism should be kept separate from other criticisms if possible. The gorby link was reverted every time I tried to add it to the article. zen master T 18:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for adding criticisms if applicable. Gorbachev is sort of iffy, but he is still a large figure in history. As to your charges of "Red baiting," I think you're being a bit oversensitive, although the section could be sub-sectioned for different groups (a section for Al-Qaeda, a section for politicans, a section for Arab world reaction, and so forth). --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than links, could we add a summary of the criticisms to the article?

3RR violations

I've blocked both Adam Carr and Zen-master for 24 hours. Cut it out. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:01, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The elections Bush didn't want

This link contains some interesting background information worth using, and begins with, "As media coverage of today's elections in Iraq swims in phrases like "major test of President Bush's goal of promoting democracy," and as the Bush administration does everything it can to claim credit for their occurrence, it seems like a good moment to take a look back at how they really came about -- through a process in which Dubya and his crew were dragged against their will, kicking and screaming, every step of the way." —Christiaan 21:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV. ugen64 23:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No part of NPOV policy precludes the use of the information linked to in the weblog above. —Christiaan 23:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sistani's role in ensuring the elections is an important part of the story. It is also an important reason why those who say the Irakis are havving democracy rammed down their throats are ignoring what is actually happening in Irak.
Paradoxically the actions of the resistance seems to have increased the legitimacy of the elections. The fact that that there was real danger in voting makes the elections more significant. For voters themselves it was a act of courage, a statement that democracy was their choice not something alian and Western.
That's not to say there aren't real weaknesses in these elections but those faults are seen as being caused by the resistance. Sheesh, you can't expect things to run smoothly when election workers are resigning because of death threats. True, holding the elections so late is considered by many to be one of the causes of the resitance's growth. A lot of things have been going wrong since the invasion - lets hope things start going right now. Dejvid 03:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I $echo() Dejvid's statements (bad joke, I know). For Christiaan, I ask what from the linked articles he wants to put into the article. It seems to me mostly a partisan analysis. Facts, of course, are welcome. --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

PageLock

Why has this page been locked? am I to sift through the mindless rantings of some here, only to come to the end where I find for trying to argue against the conspricy theories, a man I respect has been banned for 24 hours? what the censored is going on? Pellaken 23:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Major follows:

major

  1. Of great significance or importance.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Disrupt follows:

To throw into confusion or disorder / To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of

Was the election thrown into confusion, or impeded in a signifant or important way

No

Hence, this entire argument is based on a truth VS a falsehood.

Pellaken 23:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...I have absolutely no idea why those definitions were necessary, but I'd like to add that I think it's silly to have a current event page locked. See the latest BJAODN page? Those two boxes are on there. How is it supposed to be updated if it's locked? --YixilTesiphon 01:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, the whole world is focused on this (at least me and the people I know are) and to have it locked is overkill. I say we need arbitration (I've presented my case for who's right) and a decision ASAP. Pellaken 02:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was also deleteting of external links. Surely the only grounds for deleting a link is that it is off topic and those links were clearly on-topic? Dejvid 04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why is this page still blocked??????Dejvid 15:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"why is this page still blocked"? I take it as a sign of incompetence by those at the highest levels of wikipedia. Yes I know they've read my other comments, (and if they havent read the talk page of a current event locked page, then they re remiss in their duties) and I know they'll read these ones. Maybe I should start browsing one of those wikiripoffs. Pellaken 19:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote

In light of the highly biased nature of this article to date, in favour of U.S. government and corporate propaganda it seems very appropriate to point fellow editors to this little gem in the NY times, from 1967. Contains, "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong."

This article is "highly biased"? Seems pretty NPOV to me (though I do find the numbers suspect, but that takes time.) It would be much more productive if you could propose specific changes to this article rather than simply linking to an article published years ago. Simply insinuating something without actually stating specifics does not help anybody. --Bletch 00:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll cope. In all it's glory —Christiaan 01:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Like Bletch, I'm wondering how exactly you think that this article will improve the Wikipedia entry. --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm hoping it will help take the blinders off a few people so they can see through some of the propaganda. A long shot I know, especially for those immersed in U.S. television. —Christiaan 08:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You still haven't indicated what you want to do with it in the article. Do you intend to link it in External links or what? And your paranoia regarding U.S. television is mostly unfounded, especially considering that a large majority of media figures oppose the current administration. But at least our primary source of television news isn't the government, unlike many other countries. --Slowking Man 08:40, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Poll about allowing criticism of the party-line in the article

¿Should we allow a criticism of the the party-line in the article?

Yes

  1. Ŭalabio 02:59, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

No

  1. Dissent from the party line will not be tolerated. All dissenters will be blocked. Pax Americana.
    (I'm being sarcastic, obviously.) Oh, and could you refrain from creating section breaks around your Talk posts? It interrupts the page flow. --Slowking Man 06:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- President Theodore Roosevelt, speaking on President Wilson's crackdown on dissent after the U.S. entered W.W.I

So now, you do not like my talksectiontemplate:

----

== (Subject) ==

----

(Comment or question)

--

~~~~

----

I never got any complaints before, and pasting it onto a talkpage makes new sectioncreation a breeze. Whenever I have the honor of archiving, a talkpage or creating one from whole clothe, I just paste this baby onto the clean empty talkpage:

----

== [[/Archive | Archive]] -- [http://WikiPedia.Org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2005&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion] ==

----

¡Start a new discussion is cool!

--

Ŭalabio 23:56, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I didn't know it was something you did on every Talk page. You don't have to change it (obviously); I just find it a bit annoying, but I'll cope. --Slowking Man 06:30, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

What has all this got to do with anything in the article? It's about time (some) Americans realised that what happens in Iraq is not just all about American domestic politics. It's about what happens to 20 million Iraqis, who (whether you like it or not) have just been given the chance to vote in their first democratic election. Adam 03:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the poll is about your editwarring over criticism. If your position cannot withstand criticism, it must be very weak. President Theodore Roosevelt, the first American to win a Nobel Peace Prize, has some words about those who cannot withstand criticism, which one can find in this section. Ŭalabio 03:55, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Democracy at the end of a barrel is not democracy. There is a good chance we are in there for oil (among other reasons). zen master T 11:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Walabio, what is your evidence that my position cannot stand criticism? My position is that the elections went ahead without major disruption. I have repeatedly asked Zen for evidence to the contrary, which he has failed to provide. All he can come up with is irrelevant cliches like the ones he has just offered. I am more than happy to debate any issue with anyone who has some intelligent criticisms to make, but so far I have not seen any. For the fourth or fifth time, I ask: where is the evidence that the elections suffered major disruption? Where is the evidence that the 60% turnout figure is a lie (as Zen alleges)? Who is alleging these things? Let's have some citations. I want quotes from people who know what they are talking about, not antiwar movement slogans. Then we can have a discussion. (PS, what does "democracy at the end of a barrel" mean?) Adam 13:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adam, we are past "major disruption" now, please look additions to this talk page and the changes others have made to the article since it came off of protection. I admit I was wrong to repeatedly harp on the "major disruption" definition point, sorry. However, the current version of the article is much more NPOV which was my original concern (I went about it poorly). The article now states who is saying there were no major disruptions and indicates there are varying estimates for turnout figures among other points and the criticisms section (now renamed reaction section) also was put back. Adam, what specific concerns do you have with the current version of the article? zen master T 13:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that Zen has retracted his claims that the elections suffered major disruptions, that "many" sources said the elections were a farce, and that the turnout figures are "lies." Dante and others, note that Zen was forced to retract only by my repeated reversions of his edits and demands for evidence. This is why edit wars are a good thing, and why the 3R rule is a bad thing. Now we can get back to editing the article. Adam 01:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

I was never opposed to a "reactions" section - I wrote most of the present one. I was opposed to your ridiculous claims about the election being a fake and the turnout estimates lies. Since you have given up making these claims, let alone trying to substantiate them, I am entitled to say you have retracted them. But we have moved beyond that now, and are now working on a much improved article. Adam 13:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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