Talk:Democracy in Iraq

Dissolving the article

(This posting may seem rather long. If you’re tired or not really interested, perhaps you shouldn’t read it or comment on it.)
It seems not an encyclopedically good idea to have this (in November 2021 created) separate Wikipedia article entitled: ‘Democracy in Iraq’.
1. Firstly: that the Iraqi Constitution declares Iraq to have a “system of government” that is “democratic”, is ofcourse a correct fact. But that simple fact of Iraq formally being a democracy does not yet justify the existence of a separate article in Wikipedia: it can, and should, simply be mentioned in article ‘Iraq’ – where it indeed is mentioned, in section Iraq#Government and politics. (It can or should perhaps also be inserted in its subsection Iraq#History#21st century, and/or in the lead section of that article ‘Iraq’.)

2. Secondly: the theoretical statement: ‘We [= Iraq] are a democracy’ is ofcourse put into practice in a political system with structures and procedures concerning government, parliament, elections, etc.. Article Democracy in Iraq now describes that organisation of government, in its lead section and its subsection ‘American occupation (2003–2011)’, but – though that information may be correct – this article is not the right place to describe that. Just like for presumably every other country (democratic or not democratic), Wikipedia had earlier also for Iraq chosen for a section called ‘Government and politics’ in main article Iraq. Considering that the basic principle of any encyclopedia – or at least of Wikipedia – is to gather all relevant information about a topic, as good as possible, in one article (for surveyability, transparency, consistency, reliability, etc.), explanation of Iraq’s governmental organisation etc. belongs only in Iraq#Government and politics (or, if more convenient, in its referred subarticle Politics of Iraq for further details).
If another article in Wikipedia, with a clear, encyclopedical reason of existence for itself, has a logical need to also give some (summarized) information about the political organisation in Iraq, it is ofcourse permitted to include in that article a summary of article Politics of Iraq, with reference to the full (‘main’) article Politics of Iraq for the extended version. But, in the case of Democracy in Iraq, as argued above and further below, this article does not seem to have a good encyclopedical reason to exist on its own (thus also no encyclopedic reason to include summaries of other Wikipedia articles in it). I don’t know, why this article Democracy in Iraq was started; perhaps, some aspect of the organisation of government etc. was found to be missing in the existing articles ‘Iraq’ and ‘Politics of Iraq’. But in that case, the Wikipedia solution should be (see above: the basic encyclopedical principle) to improve those existing articles, by adding what seems to be missing in them, not to start a whole new, ‘competing’, Wiki-article to present some further or forgotten aspects of the topic. Therefore, the task before us now is to relocate the few details concerning ‘Politics of Iraq’, included in Democracy in Iraq but not yet in Politics of Iraq, to the correct article Politics of Iraq.

3. Thirdly: this (so-far apparently unnecessary etc.) article contains a large section – comprising 60% of the body of the article – called ‘History’. Possibly, the inventor of this section had read the information in lead section and section ‘History’ of article ‘Iraq’ – the logical places in Wikipedia for information about how or why in Iraq in the years 2003–2006 the authoritarianism of Hussein was replaced by a form of democracy – and had found it not complete or not clear enough (or taking a tone he couldn’t appreciate). But – considering that the principle of Wikipedia (as stated above) is to gather all relevant information on a certain topic in one article – the Wikipedia reaction to such a situation should not be to start a whole new, ‘compe­ting’, section in a new article to present the information or aspects that were found to be missing in the existing and appropriate article, but to improve that existing article by adding that (presumedly) missing information to it (and perhaps edit/improve the ‘tone’ and/or neutrality of that existing article).
Section Democracy in Iraq#History for a large part now seems to redouble the information already given in Iraq#History, but it also contains several extra facts/viewpoints. Though placed here and not in the correct article, we must assume that that extra information in this section ‘History’ is relevant for Wikipedia, and therefore – in the interest of a coherent etc. enyclopedia – integrate/merge section Democracy in Iraq#History fully into section Iraq#History. (Ofcourse some subsections overthere might then (temporarily) get longer or ‘too long’ but that is a practical problem for which various, well-known solutions exist.)

4. Fourthly: article Democracy in Iraq (section ‘Issues of political culture’) contains four subsections about specific political issues (comprising 40% of the body of the article), issues raised by some as presumably hampering or harming the quality or effectiveness of Iraqi politics or government and thereby the quality of the Iraqi society.
One of those issues however, Corruption, was already covered in article Politics of Iraq in a subsection of section ‘Issues’, already since July 2011; that article Politics of Iraq is clearly directed to in main article Iraq section Government and politics. An editor of article ‘Democracy in Iraq’ on the later date of 17 November 2022 however apparently wanted to picture corruption as a thing afflicting democracy, by (double) placing a subsection about that topic in this article Democracy in Iraq (perhaps unaware of its earlier placing already in Politics of Iraq). Corruption by its definition however distorts, harms (good) government/governance; therefore, this can occur also if a government is not (explicitly) democratic. (Whether the corruption in Iraq also undermines/distorts/harms the democracy in Iraq as practical political system is however an unproven and hard to prove assumption or suggestion.) Therefore, the logical (and ideologically neutral) place for the issue ‘Corruption in Iraq’ is in that article Politics of Iraq where it stands already since 2011. (Double-covering any topic in Wikipedia is ofcourse against the encyclopedical principles – consistency, reliability, surveyability etc. – as I’ve argued above already twice.) Therefore, the task before us now is to merge those two subsections entitled ‘Corruption’, and leave the result in article Politics of Iraq where it was (correctly) started back in 2011.
What holds for the subsection about issue ‘Corruption’ in Democracy in Iraq holds more or less also for the three other subsections of Democracy in Iraq#Issues of political culture: press freedom, muhasasa, authoritarianism, repression, political gridlock(=unability to agree on a new Cabinet/government/Prime Minister) are also issues that, according to the cited notable sources, (can) hamper/afflict good or effective government/governance. By placing these 3 other subsections/issues however in this article ‘Democracy in Iraq’, we suggest, just like in the case of subsection Corruption, that these issues threaten or harm democracy in its structures and procedures: a suggestion purely on the account of one or several Wiki editors but not stated by notable sources in these subsections. Ofcourse, if that afflicted/hampered government is democratic, it is a democratic government that is hampered by those issues, but still it is government(as institution)/governance/politics(as activity) that is hampered/harmed/afflicted, not democracy in its structures or procedures. Therefore, these three other subsections/issues, along with that (associated) issue of Corruption, should also be placed in article Politics of Iraq, section ‘Issues’.
This conclusion, after the conclusions argued under the points 1, 2 and 3 above, results in the aggregate conclusion that article ‘Democracy in Iraq’ has no good encyclopedical reason or necessity of existence in Wikipedia and its contents can and should be replaced to the encyclopedically correct and logical places elsewhere in Wikipedia. By finally redirecting the article’s title Democracy in Iraq to Iraq#Government and politics (with its further referring to the subarticle Politics of Iraq) we then facilitate the Wikipedia visitors who wish to read about issues (presumably/allegedly) afflicting/hampering/threatening the (democratic) government of Iraq.

Summarizing: there is no good, encyclopedical reason or necessity for this separate article to exist in Wikipedia, and on the contrary its existence disturbs and harms the consistency, reliability and surveyability etc. (the encyclopedical principles) of Wikipedia. The information stated in this article is presumably (considered) relevant, but the different parts of it should, for the consistency, reliability, surveyability etc. of the encyclopedia as a whole, be inserted/merged into or added to several already existing articles—as explained above—pertaining to Iraqi history and politics and government; which I now propose to correct, by following the four steps set out above. (I volunteer to pursue that work but wouldn’t decline help from others on that task.)
[ P.S.: I can’t guarantee my quickly replying to reactions below; but I can give all Talk contributors here an alert when I’ve come down to answering if my answering takes me longer than three days. ] --Corriebertus (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that, according to Transparency International Iraq is one of the worst-ranked countries in the world for democracy? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110703093122/http://costsofwar.org/article/did-wars-bring-democracy-afghanistan-and-iraq
  • ALT0a: ... that Iraq is one of the worst-ranked countries in the world for democracy? Source: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
  • ALT0b: ... that the democracy of Iraq is ranked as one the worst in the world? Source: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
  • ALT1: ... that Iraq has only experienced 13 years in which they were not at war since 1980? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14546763
  • Reviewed: N/A

Created by FormalDude (talk). Self-nominated at 22:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC).

• I am my self a skeptic and do respect skepticism of various hues; still Iraq has gone through much difficult times and it is but natural for Iraq's democracy to stabilize etc, hence no novelty in the information being provided in both the hooks. In my personal opinion, I suppose nom can do better in improving the article content a little further and think over better hooks. All the best. Bookku (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Small disclaimer: I am not aware of Iraq's politics hence no personal political leanings, equally I might not be accurate in my assessment since not closely aware of Iraq politics. Bookku (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Transparency International does not rank democracy.
2. ALT1 is an easter egg. (t · c) buidhe 13:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• New enough, long enough. ALT0 short enough and sourced (as is every paragraph). No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. That BBC article is giving me a headache to read, so I would be taking you at your word for ALT1, but this could run with ALT0 as is.--Launchballer 16:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• @FormalDude: can you walk me through the sourcing for ALT0? As far as I can see, it's sourced to Of the 167 countries ranked for 2010, Iraq is classified as a “hybrid regime” (between a “flawed democracy” and an “authoritarian regime”) and comes in at #111.[1], which sounds fine until you look at footnote [1] and discover that it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index. Not to mention that it's a stretch to call 111 out of 167, "one of the worst-ranked". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: Sourced from "On the Democracy Index, Afghanistan is categorized as an authoritarian regime and ranks at 150 out of 167.". Updated ALT0 accordingly. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
    • FormalDude It's best to not edit hooks in-place, but rather to create additional alternates. It makes it easier to track the history of the discussion that way. I've fixed that up for you. I'm not familiar with Transparency International, but my initial impression is to be wary of them as an unbiased WP:RS. This thread at WP:RSN tends to agree with that. So, I think you're OK with the statement, as long as it's clearly attributed to Transparency International, and sourced to them directly, not to costsofwar.org summarizing what TI said. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
      • @RoySmith: Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. ALT0 is not accurate because it's not sourced to Transparency International, that was a mistake. It's sourced to the The Economist's Democracy Index, and they're actually currently undergoing an RfC at RSN. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
        • FormalDude, RoySmith, it's been a month since the last post here; where does this nomination stand, and what needs to be done? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
          • I still don't understand the sourcing. How is On the Democracy Index, Afghanistan is categorized as an authoritarian regime and ranks at 150 out of 167 a source for how Iraq is ranked? I downloaded the report at https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/. It's 84 pages long. You'll need to provide a more specific citation. A page number and a quote would be ideal, so somebody (i.e. me) can find the statement you're referring to. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
          • @BlueMoonset: I'll just withdraw the nomination as I don't think there's anything I can say that would make RoySmith understand. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Democracy in Iraq/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @FormalDude - Looking through the article I came to the conclusion that I see this as a quickfail for multiple issues, but mostly because it does not cover the topic properly and suffers from SYNTH issues (especially the conflation of protest with democracy). However, I've requested a second opinion to confirm (or contest) my assessment.

I think the overall problem is that the article is not clear on what it is trying to address. The first part of the article discusses the history of Iraq without any reference to democracy or democratic movements. The 2011 and 2019 protests sections are not discussions of democracy but descriptions of events. Protests are not intrinsic to democracy, nor are many of the examples presented clearly democratic: eg "the protestors' key demands (improved governance, public services, and job prospects)" ... all those elements are not intrinsiclly related to democracy and could be addressed in conditions unrelated to democracy. The only section which is overtly about (formal) democracy is the measures of democracy section.

In order to address this topic properly to achieve a GA, it's necessary for far more extensive engagement with the generalist and specialist literature that discusses the history, origins and theories of Iraq's democracy and its democratic movements.

References

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Responding to the 30 request, I broadly agree with the above. Another concern for me is the highlighting of Freedom House, which ranks "freedom" rather than democracy. It would be more useful to compare a few different indices that rank democracy specifically, such as V-Dem, the Economist's ranking, etc. Alternately, if it could be directly supported by a reliable source a statement like "Political scientists generally do not consider Iraq a democracy as of [date]" could also be used.
• Additionally, I checked the statement, "The country's populace has become increasingly more averse to the idea of liberal democracy" and could not find it in the source. I believe that such a potentially controversial claim needs a better source than Freedom House, which does not specialize on investigating public opinion. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

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