From Wikitravel

For future reference the Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Iraq/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

---

Change to 'Understand' section

I've changed the following paragraph: The next twenty-five years took a grinding toll in the country, with a lengthy war with neighbouring Iran and sanctions following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraq was invaded in 2004 by a coalition of forces, principally including the United States, United Kingdom, Poland and Australia, who removed the ruling regime. After a period of military occupation, sovereignty was transferred to a new Iraqi government in June 2004.

Iraq was invaded in 2003, not 2004. The invasion was led by the US. Iraq is still under occupation and sovereignty is not transferred to puppet governments. Christiaan 10.44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also changed this paragraph: The security situation is perilous in most areas of the country, and continues to deteriorate. A process of reconstruction is now taking place in Iraq. However, underground resistance to the Coalition Forces and the new governing council means guerrilla warfare, acts of terrorism, and kidnapping of foreign workers are ongoing problems.

Reconstruction is not taking place. Of the construction taking place most involves the building of US military installments. "Coalition Forces" is a term used by the western media. Much of the rest of the world calls it what it is, an occupation. Christiaan 10.54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the most part, I view your changes as non-neutral in tone and point of view. I will however work on toning down the emphasis that "sovergeinty has been transfered" since that at least appears more symbolic than factual. It might be a useful compromise to simply rip out recent history since only a moron goes to Iraq these days without knowing recent history, and we could then duck the entire issue until there is a democratically elected government in Iraq. -- Colin 23:03, 14 Nov 2004 (EST)

Okay, I took a shot at it. Please have a look and comment. Keep in mind that the important thing is to provide the traveller with information he actually needs. For example, the provisional government is a real problem for the traveller if they must get a visa, and the provisional govt is not issuing visas. -- Colin 23:17, 14 Nov 2004 (EST)

Alright I've made some more edits. For the most part I also view your changes as non-neutral. It was a US-led invasion - this is factual, not POV. It's important for travellers to realise that it was a US-led invasion (without the US this invasion would not have taken place) as this has a bearing on how certain people might expect to be treated while in Iraq. To say that Iraq was invaded by a "coalition of forces" is to suggest that its members wanted to invade and subsequently formed a coalition. In fact it was the US administration that wanted to invade (along with Tony Blair), so they attempted to form a coalition (much of it through bribery and blackmail) afer being snubbed by the UN. It might even be useful to explain to travellers that the invasion was not endorsed by the UN and therefore illegal under international law.

There is no grey area when it comes to sovereignty. Sovereign, by definition, is complete independence. Therefore anything other than complete independence is not sovereignty. The IGC is an executive that has been hand-selected by the invaders. It is in fact very clear how much power this executive has; the US government holds a veto on any decision. Far from sovereign.

It's not been a requirement to get a visa since the executive was installed. A visa has always been required to travel to Iraq.

It continues to be a military occupation - this is clearly evidenced by the fact that the construction taking place in Iraq at the moment is that of US military bases. And it belies the extremely dangerous situation on the ground to suggest that "a process of reconstruction is taking place". There is in fact a growing resistance taking place in the form of a guerilla war. To suggest a process of reconstruction is taking place is to critically misrepresent the situation to travellers.

I am uninterested in your political positions as they differ significantly from mine. I doubt you are much interested in mine. So I just won't go there if that's okay with you :-)

I appreciate many of your gramatical changes to the text. They help and are clear improvements.

I had some questions on your facts, so I visited Wikipedia. When you write in this article Iraqi Governing Council, I assume you mean the WikiPedia:Iraq Interim Governing Council which was disbanded upon the creation of WikiPedia:Iraq interim government. I deliberately ducked naming the government in my version cause I didn't know the name.

Wikipedia claims the current Iraqi government is recognized by the U.S., the United Nations, the Arab League and several other countries as being the sovereign government of Iraq. So while I think this implies that the word sovereign could be used, I also am uncomfortable with this usage so I added the phrase though it is unclear how much freedom of action this new government has to my version to at least make the mess visible to the traveler. I figure if we lay the ambigiuity bare to the reader of this article and make darn clear where the ambiguities lie, we are doing our job and making this the traveller's problem.

As for why I want the word sovereign in there at all, I think what is important is that we emphasis for the traveller that the interim-whateveritis may have some actual power over the traveller. The traveller needs a heads-up that they really do need to pay attention to both the interm-foo and the coalition.

Real reconstruction is occuring in some parts of the country. Kurdish areas are not a problem. But I think it's irrelevant to the traveller so how about we delete any mention of the reconstruction?

As for who picked the current government, it was done with the explicit consent of the UN. But a) it's unclear how the politics of that happened and b) I'm not sure it matters to the traveller. So again I ducked the issue by saying "it exists". In my view, the only reason for us to talk about this is to emphasize to the traveler that the coalition may or may not protect the traveller from the government; so again it's a warning to the traveller that they must not ignore the government, regardless of its origin.

So in summary, I'm not interested in justifying US actions, Coalition actions, US-Centric coalition issues, the authority or meanings of UN resolutions, or the moral authority of the government du-jour. I'm interested in making it darn clear that the traveller should a) watch their step, b) assume that in any situation, the coalition may claim authority and the traveller shouldn't count on appealing to any authority to overrule the coalition, and c) assume that in any situation, the interim government may claim authority and the traveller shouldn't count on appealing to any authority to overrule the interim government.

Anything that doesn't server the traveller should be deleted. (And no, I'm not saying everything you wrote doesn't server the traveller, I'm just trying to espouse the general principle we should guide the text with). -- Colin 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (EST)

So while I was busy typing that stuff above, it looks like Evan rewrote sections for formatting and rewrote stuff to enhance the danger versus the politics. I can live with that. -- Colin 22:17, 15 Nov 2004 (EST)

I've added some of my experience from traveling in Iraq. I'm new here so if I've totally screwed this up, let me know! -- Jake

Looks fine. I just moved the drinking water situation to stay safe. And deleted the advice to brush with contaminated water because I do not believe in it. Besides it would not be specific to Iraq. I am not an expert on this, but we should have a solid medical reference before telling travelers to but contaminated water in their mouth. -- elgaard 10:10, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Ah, I see. Alright, that makes sense. Is there an IRC channel for wikitravel? Also, I'm currently in Iraq, so if there is a pressing need for information, ask me questions and I'll post the updates in the main page. Also, where's a good reference for editing this wiki (with regards to shortcuts for making time stamps, etc? I'm new to wikis where I'm doing something other than an information dump. -- Jake 19:33, 26 Apr 2005 (ADT)

Your user page says you are a photographer. A few photos would be nice. And information about internet access, which you should know if you are writing from there.

Wikitravel:Help is a good reference, and IRC details are at Wikitravel:IRC channel.

Also, tap water potability is (IMHO) a clear Drink issue, perhaps with a second reference in Stay healthy. Jpatokal 11:22, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Air Scotland

Regarding the removal of the Air Scotland info, and the comment that it will be relevant "in November 2005", considering it is currently so difficult to get into Iraq, wouldn't it make sense that someone using this guide would be planning a future trip, and thus information about airlines with future routes would be helpful? -- Wrh2 20:56, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I agree, thus why I orignaly added it. --Admrboltz 23:08, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I disagree. Until you can make reservations on Air Scotland to go to Baghdad (which you can't, now), nobody can use this information to make real plans. Also, if we leave speculative information in the guides, we have to be extra-careful to see the predictions stay current ("now it's planned for Dec 2005... now it's Mar 2006... Now they'll just be flying to Damascus instead..."). Rather than giving info on a scenario that exists in a company press release, why don't we instead concentrate on the zillions of routes, attractions, restaurants, museums, bars, hotels, lakes and villages that do exist, right now? --Evan 11:21, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I disagree with your disagreement. If somebody comes across the article in Nov 2005 while making "real plans", they can at least give Air Scotland a call and see what's up. (And if they're really nice, they can update the article again!). Jpatokal 00:56, 17 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I'll try putting in some compromise text. Revise at will. --Evan 15:40, 17 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Looks good. For destinations served by only one or two airlines it seems like useful information to know that another airline might be joining the mix and that it could be worthwhile waiting a few months to buy tickets. Also, given a similar time-sensitive example like the constantly changing road-closure information in the Death Valley article (updated by at least three different people), it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that contributors will also keep this information current. -- Wrh2 16:02, 17 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I think my main concern is cluttering destination guides with lots of text that's not practical travel information. Rumors and press releases (is there a difference?) don't really fall inside my definition of "practical". --Evan 16:58, 17 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Would it be acceptable to modify the Wikitravel:Accommodation listings, Wikitravel:Restaurant listings and Wikitravel:Bar listings articles with a note that clarifies this issue by saying something like the following: "If a restaurant/accomodation/bar is not yet open or accepting reservations it should not be included in the article. An exception may be made for destinations that have two or fewer restaurants/accomodations/bars in the entire destination (for example "While there is currently no accomodation on Weddell Island, the owners of the lodge on Sea Lion Island plan to open a 10 room hotel in the spring of 2006")." It seems reasonable that people would want to know if there may be at least one or two options when they arrive. This could also apply to plane/bus/boat options, although I didn't see an obvious place to add that info. -- Wrh2 18:02, 17 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Politicality

'Terrorist': subjective; 'insurgent', less so.