Talk:January 2005 Iraqi parliamentary election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anbar[edit]

I have read an allegation that some US idiot claimed many happy American supporting Iraqis voted in Fallujah. Dubious at best, and results so far seem to show that as false as anyone might guess. But, is it true that some US politician claimed that? If so, anyone know who?

I have not heard any such claim. That said there are so many politicians out there that I'm sure at least one said something like that. If someone major said something like that, the media would have probably tore them to shreds. --Bletch 19:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Minority or Majority?[edit]

I think that alot of people here might be missing out on a mathematical truth about Proportional Representation. While the Al-Sistani's United List may have only captured 47% of votes, they may well get more then 47% of the seats. Here's an example:

Lets say there's an election. Party Blue takes 550 votes. Party Red takes 300. Party Green takes 150. Party Purple takes 50. Party Orange also takes 50. And Party Brown takes 50 votes as well.

If you add this up, you'll see that Party Blue has less then half of the votes cast. The issue becomes one of Threshold. If the Threshold is set at 100, then all votes for parties that captured less then 100 votes need to be thrown out. If you do that, all of a sudden you realize that of those ballots, Party Blue does have a majority. My calculations has the List at 51.06% of the votes that will be used for the calculations, and thereofre capturing 141 of the 275 seats for a majority.

Perhaps I'm wrong? Pellaken 19:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. The 11 parties qualifying for seats polled just on 8 million votes between them, and the Sistani list polled just over 4 million. It will therefore get almost exactly half the seats, and will be able to form a majority coalition with either the Kurds or Allawi's list or both. Adam 20:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A bunch of news sources are saying the UAI gets only 132 seats [1][2][3]. Are they incorrectly doing a straight 275 times 48%, or do they know something we do not. - SimonP 00:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

It depends really on one thing - are these from countries with PR? One of them looks like it may be. Pellaken 01:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The IECI has not announced the results in terms of numbers of seats won, at least not on their website. So this is all speculation at present. Adam 03:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has ever claimed that two-party citizens would ever understand even the basics of PR.

Structure of the elected government[edit]

Hey all, I struck the first sentance from this section which had read"

Iraq's interim constitution provides for an Iraqi Transitional Government to replace the Iraqi Interim Government. Besides the National Assembly, the transitional government will also include the Presidency Council, the Council of Ministers, and the judicial authority."

This is all true, but it is highly confusing. The Iraqi Transitional Govevrnment was replaced by the Iraqi Interim Government months ago and has nothing to do with the elections. The new National Government is neither of the governments mentioned here. I figured I would help eschew some obfuscations. -Kramer

Independence of Iraqi Kurdistan[edit]

It is my understanding from reports on National Public Radio in the U.S. that voters in Iraqi Kurdistan voted on a ballot question on Iraqi Kurdistan's independence from the rest of Iraq. It is also my understanding that this was a non-binding referendum. Have there been any results announced of this referendum? If so, could these be posted in the article? Thanks in advance. - Scooter 03:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but this is an article about the Iraqi legislative election. It might belong better at Iraqi Kurdistan, with a reference from this article. Adam 03:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Registration and turnout issue[edit]

The total vote cited by the IECI is 8.4 million. This is said to represent a 58% turnout. This must mean that there are 14.5 million registered voters. If Iraq's population is 25 million as Wikpedia says, then 58% of the population are registered voters. But since we are also told that half the population of Iraq is under 19, and since we must assume that a majority of Sunni Arabs have not registered as voters, something here does not add up. Iraq only has 12-13 million adults, so it can't have 14.5 million registered voters. Has anyone seen a figure for this? Adam 04:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Later: The UN figure for voter registration is 14,270,000. The IECI figure for the votes cast is 8.4 million. This means that the turnout percentage was 59.9%. I am still sceptical that Iraq can have 14.2 million adult registered voters when its population is 25 million. Adam 10:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is on that of reporting and terms. In the last US election (for example, unfortunatly, I dont remember the numbers) the US had 60% of registered voters turn out, and 50% of elegible voters turn out. I think there's confusion as to the %age of elegable / registered voters. Pellaken 11:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The mystery explained: pretty much the entire population is on the rationing lists dating back to Saddam's time. These were the basis for voter rolls (outside Kurdish areas, I assume) therefore nearly all eligible voters are registered... they do not need to do anything in order to register (except fix occasional mistakes). Assume 99% of the eligible voters are registered, you would expect 0.99 * 25 * 0.5 * (1 + 1/19) = 13.2 million voters. Add a million or so registered voters out-of-country, and you're there. ObsidianOrder 13:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable explanation. Adam 21:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Results table[edit]

Where are these figures on the number of seats won by each party coming from? There are no official figures on this. Adam 21:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the link to the source on the "full results" page doesn't work anymore. 150.208.205.135 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women[edit]

How many women were elected to the National Assembly? Women were given every third slot of the candidate lists and were estimated to get about 30% of the seats. (Alphaboi867 18:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC))

- Nobody has ever claimed that single-seat-district-voters would understand PR and especially voting lists, while multimember-districts is even more difficult.

Not to forget direct voting, not for lists but actual persons.

However, many say that those few single-seat-majority-districts left will not survive that many decades. PR is said to be really difficult, similar to voting lists, and especially mixed election systems, although everyone but some few use that.

Kurdistan election results[edit]

Does anybody have information on the outcome of the election to the 111-member Kurdistan regional assembly? I mean, I expect the Democratic and Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan to sweep, but does anybody have figures for it? None of the media I've seen even seem to be acknowledging that the regional elections happened. QuartierLatin1968 20:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have some figures and will post them at Iraqi Kurdistan legislative election, 2005 when I get time today. Adam 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have now placed voting figures by Governorate at my website. Feel free to adapt these tables for this article. Adam 01:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


possible suggestion for iraq?[edit]

would this work.

Since the Sistani List won a majority, but likely having a minority would be politically more reasonable, could they make an offer to allow smaller parties to have more representation? Basacally, they would allow all the parties that are over the threshold to have as many seats as they truly deserve, this means the sistani list only gets 133 seats. in return, the following parties would get 1 representive:

Iraq Assembly of National Unity = Assembly of Independent Democrats = Iraqi Islamic Party = Islamic Dawa Movement = Iraqi National Gathering = Iraqi Republican Assembly = Constitutional Monarchy - Al-Sharif Ali bin Al-Hussein = Assembly for Iraqi Democracy = Independent - Ali Muslim Jar Allah Ali Al-Bithani = Hashemite Iraqi Monarchist Assembly = Democratic National Alliance = Democratic Iraqi Current = Democratic Iraq Assembly = Islamic Vanguard Party = National Front of the Unity of Iraq

My question to you guys is - is this possible? or does the election law forbid it? Pellaken 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe election law forbids it, since the names of representatives must come from the certified list for each party or coalition. What is more likely to happen is that the Sistani list will invite other parties or influential people, primarily Sunni, to participate in the constitution-drafting process, but they will retain the final say. Also, a number of laws require a 2/3 majority, the most likely for that is a UIA/Kurds alliance. I think the current setup will work well: the Shia can use their majority to expedite the process (which will be helpful, given the very short schedule), but not to force decisions on substantive issues. ObsidianOrder 04:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No country would change the outcome of an election of a national election retrospectively. The Sunni parties chose to boycott the election, so now they are shut out of the political process by their own choice. The only concession I would offer is that if the Sunni parties agreed to participate in free elections, I would agree to hold re-runs of the elections in the four Sunni Governorates, but I doubt the Shia parties would agree to that - and why should they? Adam 06:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


>No country would change the outcome of an election of a national election retrospectively.

Um, have there not been two very high profile instances very recently, and even covered here on wikipedia? (But, maybe you were joking, still, to be safe, in case any readers mistakenly take your joke as serious, lets mention these.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_legislative_election%2C_2003

Um, legally annulling a corrupt election and running it again is not the same thing as changing the result of an election because we don't like the result. The Iraq election was not corrupt, it just produced a less-than-desirable result because the Sunni parties boycotted it. Adam 10:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. You said no country would retroactively change the election outcome. I gave two obvious counterexamples (so obvious that I wasn't sure you were serious). Now, I gather you are amending your assertion to "no country would retroactively change an election unless they called it corrupt" ? And further, you are saying that the Iraqi election was not corrupt, so therefore no country would change it? This is getting to be a much more complicated assertion, so I'll just make one point and leave this entirely alone -- I believe one of the criticisms of the Iraqi election is specifically that it is corrupted by being held under the auspices of a violent, repressive, puppet regime -- I assume you've seen such criticisms, as I hardly invented them; I'm only telling you what I see widely reported, not whether to believe it.

That you don't get it is perfectly evident. Adam 23:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Its ok, you needn't start trying to insult me until I'll give up; I give up now. (I've realized how biased these articles are, and how filled with hatred the commentators are, and I give up as soon as people start hurling insults; I'm just not interested).

Al-Qaida has no place in criticsms section[edit]

Anyone that advocates violence is not being critical. Including Al-Qaida and Zarqawi info and quotations in the criticisms section only tarnishes the other insightful criticisms of the iraqi election, which seems like the plan. Why are the very same people that regurgitate the Coalition Provisional Authority's position that the election took place without a "major disruption" also the same people that support lengthy inclusion of Al-Qaida quotations in the critical section? And at the top of that section and rather lengthy no less. If people truly believe the Al-Qaida etc info belongs in the article then I vote we moved it to a separate section "Reaction from Al-Qaida/Zarqawi" or some such. To ensure NPOV, criticism sections generally should be put together by people who are actually critical, not by people who are in actuality very supportive. zen master T 21:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: I created a new Al-Qaida reaction sub section. zen master T 21:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Firstly no-one is "regurgitating" anything. If you start again with your insulting characterisation of other people's edits, you will get it back in kind. Secondly, it was al-Qaida fans like you who insisted on putting their "criticism" of the election in the article. I agree that Islamo-fascist terrorist gangs do not belong in the "criticism" sectiom, and I would have deleted it except I assumed you would put it back again. Adam 03:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe you were the one that added the Al-Qaida "criticism" into the article in the first place so you must be their fan, or perhaps you added easily discountable extreme terrorist reaction criticisms for some sort of reverse-psychology effect? At the very least you kept expanding the al-Qaida's reaction section by adding Zarqawi quotations, I vote we remove al-Qaida's reaction from the article all together, very subtley reasons why you are against that. Check the history and see that I tried to remove al-Qaida's reaction completely. Your apparent goal seems to be to control both sides of the debate by framing all criticisms as if they support terrorism, nice try though. zen master T 04:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not add the original al-Qaida section, so you can spare us your attempts at irony. I added the Zarqawi quote to show what al-Qaida really thinks of elections. On further consideration, I am now opposed to deleting it, since it is relevant to have Zarqawi's views on the elections recorded. Adam 04:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what Pat Buchanan's opinion has to do with the beliefs of Al Qaeda, but it is also quite wrong to say that all Islamists are anti-democratic. In fact, the winning coalition in the elections, the United Iraqi Alliance, is largely Islamist, as well as is the current democratically-elected ruling party in Turkey. Al Qaeda's ideology is definitely anti-democracy, but it does not represent all of Islamism.--Pharos 06:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a fair point, although if Islamist ideology means anything it means the belief that sovereignty belongs to God and that God's law must be applied to all areas. I put in the reference to Islamist ideology in reaction to Zen's typically irrelevant and misleading edits. Feel free to rework it. Adam 06:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have significantly altered the article. The list of quotations for and against have been move to Wikiquote, where they belong. I merged the al-Queda section into the closely related disruption section and shortened some of the quotes. Some other bits and pieces were moved into a new section on the boycott. The end result is that the Supporters and Criticisms section, both of which were wastelands of contextless POV, have disappeared. - SimonP 06:39, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the criticisms section?[edit]

If all quotations were moved to wikiquote why weren't the quotations from al-Qaida also moved there? I think we should recreate some semblence of a criticisms section? zen master T 06:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole "criticisms" section was an indulgence by some editors (such as you) who are only interested in the Iraqi elections as a pretext for Bush-bashing. The article is better off without irrelevant quotes from Mikhail Gorbachev etc. Al-Qaida, on the other hand, as the leading terrorist organisation trying to stop free elections in Iraq, must be mentioned and its statements quoted. Adam 07:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me state for the record I am not a bush basher, check my history generally and the one comment i've made in the W talk page a long while ago (I told bush bashers to be less verbose at least). As far as this article goes, I think it is a very reasonable and valid criticism to include the conservative critic buchanan's statement "people in the middle east don't have our values, they hate our policies" as a blance to the sentence in question. Adam, what do you think about that statement specifically? It is also seemingly extremely inconsistent to keep just the al-Qaida quotations in the article, I posted on Simon's talk page about why he only moved the less extreme critics but he hasn't responded. Would you or Simon mind if i moved al-Qaida's quotations to wikiquote? zen master T 07:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having some quotes in the article generally, but the Buchanan quote is clearly irrelevant when discussing the clearly stated ideology of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda of course is not "people in the middle east".--Pharos 07:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Buchanan quote was a balance against the original sentence that said something to the effect of "terrorists hate freedom and democracy" which I consider to be POV. The second citation I added was to Buchana's article that is titled "Did Bush Mis-Diagnose the Problem in the Middle East?", it deals with the entire iraq policy generally so has to be relevant? Do you honestly believe terrorists hate freedom and democracy? Buchanan compares islamic fundamentalist terrorists to native americans who attacked settlers encrouching on their native lands. zen master T 07:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article did not say "terrorists hate freedom and democracy" - it quoted Zarqawi stating his opposition to the principle of democracy. The fact that Pat Buchanan says idiotic things is hardly new and not really noteworthy. Like Gorbachev, he has no relevance or standing in this discussion. Adam 07:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you look at history the article did say "Al-Qaida affiliated groups in Iraq are opposed to all democratic elections, not just this one." [4] which is the sentence I was trying to balance and was POV, right? The Buchanan quotation is still a relevant criticism of the overall strategy in iraqi, islamic fundamentalist terrorism has been "mis-diagnosed" as te fight of democratic principles vs evil, which many, on both sides of the politcal spectrum, argue is a big mistake. Including lengthy quotations from just Al-Qaida only perpetuates a potentially incorrect diagnosis of the situation in Iraq. zen master T 07:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1. :Wrong. It is a statement of fact, as evidenced by Zaqarwi's own words. 2. Nothing Buchanan says is remotely relevant to this article. Adam 11:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Buchanan's specific criticism is very relevant to the article because it is a counter point to your number 1 point above, you are saying (which I agree is reasonable to do so) that terrorists/al Zarqarwi are opposed to all democracy, whereas others are saying the West's historic policies in the middle east are to blame for the current situation, and we will not make any progress in Iraq until we realize that and change our policies. Bush has finally realized this regarding the Israel Palestine conflict, he just recently called for a "contiguous" future Palestinian state. I am not saying remove your #1 point, I've only ever tried to caveat it with Buchanan's and others' points.
Also, I think we need a section in the article that mentions evidence for why the people think the election was faked? We don't need to add lengthy quotations. It's a tad odd the Shia's only got 47% of the vote but they are 60% population of the country plus the second largest ethnic group boycotted. zen master T 16:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most of those who voted for the Iraqi List were Shi'ite. Also many of the smaller parties (e.g. NICE and the Islamic Action Organization) are Shi'ite. We should not include Buchanan's quote. What we should have is the evidence that Buchanan used to make his assertion. - SimonP 18:04, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then let's add that? A single quotation is less verbose than an entire section of evidence, we may expand scope too far -- I suppose we can link to all the other articles on Iraq and the occupation and include brief synopsises. Where should we begin? zen master T 19:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Buchanan's quote is a criticism of the War on terrorism, and properly belongs briefly in that article and particularly in Criticisms of War on Terrorism. I still don't see how its particularly relevant to the election.--Pharos 20:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the first step should be to find some sources that specifically discuss the election. Neither [5] nor [6] directly discuss the election or the insurgents' objections to it. - SimonP 20:32, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Buchanan's statement is more broad, but so is the statement "[terrorists] are opposed to all democratic elections, not just this one" so in that context either his quotatation should be allowed or we should fix all such overly broad and possibly POV sentences inside this article? zen master T 20:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This was not a Dubya quote saying "Terrorists hate freedom"; it was a statement apparently made by Zarqawi in an audio tape released in direct response to this particular election. Given Zarqawi's role in Iraq today, his statements are directly relevant to this article. --Bletch 02:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying Zarqawi's statements aren't relevant, I am saying the point the article is making using his statements should be balanced with buchanan's statement that it is the USA's historic policies in the middle east that may lead some people to appear to hate democracy whereas in reality they hate occupation, and democracy is just a symbol of occupation. zen master T 03:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you wish to balance out those statements, then you shouldn't do so with quotes that are more relevant to Criticisms of War on Terrorism. You should do so with relevant quotes and statements that directly pertain to this election. Previously, I favored the inclusion of Gorbechev's quote because they fit those criteria (I believe that grab bag of quotes has been moved to Wikiquote.) Personally I see little in this article that suggests that Zarqawi speaks for all those who didn't vote in the election, though it would probably be appropriate to flesh the article out by having statements from the Sunni parties that have boycotted the election. Anybody have any? --Bletch 03:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think what we need to balance it out is a brief paragraph overview and link to the Criticisms of War on Terrorism and other relevant articles such as the Occupation of Iraq article. Such information should not be excluded completely from this article, we should include wiki pointers to where more detailed information resides. zen master T 18:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Isn't declaring that the war in Iraq and the "War on Terrorism" are the same advancing a POV. - SimonP 02:12, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

What happened was that, in his efforts to sanitise the article and ensure the rosiest possible picture is presented, SimonP removed the section on 07:32, 23 Feb 2005. This article now needs much work to make it balanced again. —Christiaan 00:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Post election developments[edit]

This is an article about the elections, not about post-election political developments. They belong in Politics of Iraq. Adam 06:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so would statements like "al-Qaida is opposed to all democratic election" also fall outside the scope of this article which is specific to a single election? zen master T 18:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, because that is part of a discussion of why al-Qaida sought to prevent the elections. (By the way, are you really this stupid?) Adam 03:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your position is illogical and inconsistent. If you include a quotation about something larger than the election then it's fair game to include criticism of that. The election critics are saying there are explanations other than terrorists are against freedom and democracy which stem from our historic policies in the middle east, how is that not relevant to the article? It's all related. Do you really believe terrorists hate freedom? We should include paragraph synopsis sections that link to the other articles on iraq regardless, what do you think? zen master T 04:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think you are a complete moron, but I know I'm not allowed to say that, so I will just say that I find your arguments far too convoluted to be able to respond to them. Adam 09:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sigh lets all try to be civil. Zen - I'm all in favor of including info from election critics, provided that they directly pertain to the election. Even if these quotes boil down to things like "Critics of the American and British presence in Iraq criticize the election as a consequence of that presence. See Xyz" What is not appropriate is to go in long dissertations that have already been covered elsewhere. On another note, I see nothing in this article that purpotes that "Terrorists hate freedom and democracy." If you disagree with that analysis, then please propose an alternative wording. I see a quote from one individual named Zarqawi that says words to that effect, but nothing in this article claims that everybody that dislikes the USA makes that claim. --Bletch 14:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Better than being a lackey, Adam, although of course I'd never call you that. —Christiaan 08:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scott Ritter says U.S. manipulated vote[edit]

We need to introduce this into the article somehow. http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2295/ contains:

U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

—Christiaan 23:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ritter's agenda is well known. We will need to see his evidence. Given that "US authorities" did not actually conduct the election - it was conducted almost entirely by Iraqis - the evidence will need to be good. Adam 23:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, considering who we are talking about and the severity of the allegations I think this should be included in the article on its own merit. However I'm not going to bother pushing this for the moment as this article is being guarded by yourself, SimonP and the like to ensure nothing critical creeps in. —Christiaan 00:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Touching on the evidence used by Ritter is, of course, important, but I see no need for it to be particularly compelling to be included. El_C 00:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We already know that the American antiwar left don't support democratic elections in Iraq. This should be noted, but we don't need to cite all their various theories at length, unless there is credible evidence to support them. Americans need to realise that this is an article about the Iraqi elections, not about them. Adam 00:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've went ahead and added a small blurb. If evidence is eventually provided, then that section can be built up upon. There is nothing to lose by including this info. --Bletch 02:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Americans need to realize..." and "the American antiwar left don't support democratic elections"? Adam, your rhetoric sounds exactly like what would come from a right wing propaganda machine though not just because it's inaccurate but also because you use words in a very psychologically subtle way. To put it simply, you don't want people to think. So Ritter is a part of this antiwar left is he? All serious critics of the Iraq war and occupation are unanimously in favor of true, homegrown democracy but sham elections don't count. The U.S. fabricated evidence of WMDs, so it's entirely reasonable to believe that the U.S. is also orchestrating the Iraq election process. What we need is an article on the original economic plan the neo-cons had for Iraq (the word pillage comes to mind, hopefully it is released in full some day), that might open a few minds. zen master T 05:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's all about the US and the neocons and Bush and etc etc, isn't it? Your ramblings only serve to reinforce my point that the sole preoccupation of the antiwar left is with American domestic politics - you don't care a straw about what happens to 25 million Iraqis, so long as you can use Iraq as a stick to hit Bush with. This explains Ritter's conspiracy theories as well as your delusions. Adam 10:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you'll notice I haven't mentioned Bush once in my messages, I blame his neo-con advisors rather than him. I want real democracy for the 25 million Iraqis, I don't see how true freedom is possible with the Pentagon and neo-cons orchestrating the situation. zen master T 15:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't respond directly to his arguments and accusations Zen, instead frame the argument from your point of view. You might notice he doesn't respond to yours; he reframes them instead. —Christiaan 20:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is anyone arguing to include unsupported statements in this article? Why is this article not simply reporting the known facts of the incident? I can't understand how you can imagine yourself to hold a NPOV yet want to include Scott Ritter's theories in this article. --Anonymous, 07:42, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Election as validation of Bush/Blair policies[edit]

Carbonite, you just removed a line I added to the intro with the edit summary "rm sentence from introduction on Bush and Blair; this should be discussed later in the article". Fine, let's deal with this issue further down in the text, so how about moving the sentence rather than deleting it? -- Viajero 14:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the sentence in question belongs in the article at all. However, a sentence conveying similar information may be useful later in the text. That's why I removed the line instead of moving it. On a side note, the link that you included with the sentence in question[7] probably shouldn't be used. A more recent and better sourced link would be much more helpful to a reader. Carbonite | Talk 15:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article's name will need to change...[edit]

With the approval of the constitution, new elections for a permanent government will happen by December 15, 2005. Thus, this article's title will have to change to Iraqi legislative election, January 2005 or some such. Should I just make the move or do we need to build consensus first? --Jfruh 20:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The need for this change is a pretty obvious, so feel free to go ahead. Remember to correct any double redirects creted by the move. - SimonP 20:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Made the move ... will hunt down double redirects later tonight, less'n someone else wants to tackle it. --Jfruh 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "parliamentary"[edit]

Please contibute to this discussion about renaming this article Iraqi parliamentary election, January 2005. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iraqi parliamentary election, January 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iraqi parliamentary election, January 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_2005_Iraqi_parliamentary_election&oldid=1203067562"