Talk:Al Maliki I Government

Wording of Introduction

I know we are trying to express all of the nuances and technicalities that are involved here, but surely the introduction can be rephrased to sound a little less convoluted? -Fsotrain09 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen it before (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Government_of_Iraq%2C_2006-2010&oldid=54196548) :). I take your point, and I'll try to think of some rewording. Any suggestions? AndrewRT 13:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article is inappropriate. We do not make predictions at Wikipedia. Iraq may not exist as one country in 2010, the constitution could be rewritten, who knows. --Cam 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I discussed the title on Politics of Iraq before making the page. I take your point, as it's distinctly possible it won't last till 2010!! Any suggestions for what it should be changed to? AndrewRT 18:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had some thoughts and would like to suggest:

• 1st Government of the 2nd Republic of Iraq

(except I cant find anywhere where it is referred to as the 2nd Republic)

• 1st Government of the Post-Invasion Republic of Iraq

(except by the time you get to the 23rd Government the Invasion would be history)

I can't find any reference to a distinction in name between the Republic of Iraq pre-2003 and that post-2005.

• 8th Government of the Republic of Iraq

counting (see President of Iraq)

1. Muhammad Najib ar-Ruba'i 2. Abd as-Salam Arif 3. Abd ar-Rahman al-Bazzaz 4. Abd ar-Rahman Arif 5. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr 6. Saddam Hussein 7. Iraqi Interim Government 8. This government

(except that who refers to it as the 8th government?)

• Government of Iraq elected in December 2005
• Government of Iraq from 2006

Any other suggestions?

AndrewRT 13:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it NPOV to say that the government wouldn't last? I don't see the article title as making a prediction, but rather reflecting what the legal framework for the first non-transitional government says. Fsotrain09 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What if the article was renamed Government of Iraq (2006-Present)? It seems redundant at the moment, but it sidesteps any longevity issues. Acetic Acid 22:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with acetic acid that Government of Iraq (2006-Present) is the best idea for a title as it is accurate and NPOV.Hypnosadist 22:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me take a different approach. I've found that article structure can sometimes impede resolutions. In this case, I think the article may be awkwardly framed. The most NPOV approach would be to have articles similar to what we have in any other country, and generally, we don't have an article (say) "Government of Italy 2006-2010". We have an article on the Government of Italy, which outlines the structure, and we have an article on the Prime Minister Romano Prodi. (Now, as an aside, we do have relatively short list-like articles such as George W. Bush administration that mainly outline people in various posts.) In this case, then, what we should have is an article something like Government of Iraq (2005 constitution), which would outline the structure under the constitution thus adopted, and a more comprehensive article on the ongoing administration issues at Nouri Al-Maliki, just as George W. Bush contains (rightly or wrongly) the majority of the political ups and downs of his tenure. That's one part. I can also see an argument for making this article an historical one that has now terminated, e.g. Formation of the Government of Iraq 2005-2006, because that describes a lot of what's in here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree that the current structure is not entirely satisfactory but I'm not sure what exactly it should be. The main difference between say Italy and Iraq is that the constitutional set-up of the various governments of Iraq sicne the invasion have changed each time there has been a change in government - see Iraqi Interim Government, Iraqi Transitional Government, Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Governing Council. It is entirely possible this will be the case here too as we may have a new constitution (or even a new country!) by the time the next elections are due.

I would rather keep this article (perhaps with a better name) and maybe split out "Formation" as you suggested as a subsidiary Main" article in teh saem way that Iraq is split out. AndrewRT 13:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we can't claim that this government will last until 2010. Zocky | picture popups 19:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Government of Iraq, 2006-, perhaps? -Scottwiki 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Maybe Bush? Er, um, I mean, Government of Iraq elected 2006? -zappa.jake (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the government wasn't elected in 2006 - the elections were in 2005! I would like to move the article to Government of Iraq from 2006. AndrewRT 19:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In my view, "from 2006" is more awkward and ambiguous than "2006-". Assume that the current government survives until at least 2007. "From 2006" could suggest to some casual readers that the article pertains to the government in 2006, but not in 2007 or thereafter. By contrast, "2006-" clearly indicates a period from 2006 until the year (as yet unknown) that this government ends. -Scottwiki 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)