Talk:First Republic of Iraq

[Untitled]

Not really too sure what the purpose of this is... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need to have a separate article for each regime. Adel (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

It appears as if this article is incomplete: the title says that it covers the period from 1958–1968, but it appears as if the article only actually includes information about the period from 1958–1963. Is this just a typo in the title, or is there a serious lack of content here? ––anamedperson (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of Iraq (1959-1965).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ba'athist Iraq which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Split request into Nasserist Iraq and Qasimist Iraq

Iraq under Qasim deserves its own page as it is viewed in Iraq as a distinct period in time compared to Nasserist Iraq, which is viewed as a prelude of Ba'athist Iraq which was itself a large politcal change compared to the rule of Qasim. I am unsure what the title of the Qasimist page should be, as the term Qasimist is very rare in political discource. Babylonian1963 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be seperate pages, both the Qasimist Iraq and Nasserist Iraq were the same state, not to forget that between both were a short-lived Ba'athist government. 77.183.102.191 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Technically, Ba'athist Iraq under Saddam was the same state, with continuity of the Iraqi state only ending after American occupation. The rule of Qasim represented a very different political and national reality of Iraqi history that is viewed as very distinct from the Nasserist/Baathist period. I believe is deserves its own article because of how different it was to its successors. Nasserist Iraq also respresents a transition to complete Ba'ath Party rule but also the rule of the Arab Socialist Union which sought unification with Egypt which is very different to the strictly anti-Pan-Arab policies of the Qasimist state and the later anti-Nasserist Ba'athist State. I am confused as to why only the rule of Saddam and el-Bakr is listed as the page of Ba'athist Iraq, as Ba'athist rule in Iraq started during this period.2001:8003:3FCB:B301:710F:E8B9:3123:5FC6 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Ba'athist rule in 1963 was short-lived and after it the Nasserists came to power, to add this short-lived government, wouldn't be necessarily because the Ba'athist Iraq page talks about the Ba'athist government after the 17 July Revolution. The Nasserist government used some government functions of the Qasimist government, like the legislature. Compared to the Qasimist government and the Nasserist government is the Ba'athist Iraq more important, that's why it has it's own article. 89.12.97.26 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Government infobox details

@Nikkimaria, why do you keep removing these details? The first regime was a Qasimist military junta, as is said in the body, the next regime was a Ba’athist military dictatorship, again, as is said in the body and was more authoritarian than the previous, purging communists and leftists. The last regime was a Nasserist military junta and, as I’ve said before, it is in the body. These are all different and important ideologies that determined how the government functioned and shouldn’t be removed.

Now, let’s look at how I formatted them. I had the main form of government being a parliamentary republic as it was one. I put the first two regimes in the form of “under a […]”. That’s fine, nothing constitutionally was changed, just the type of regime that the state was under. Then, for the last regime, there were changes made to the form of the state. It was declared as a socialist state per the constitution with the Arab Socialist Union as the only legal party, which is why I separated the two with the “<hr>” function. I believe this is completely fine and clearly states the government forms.

Now, what you have consistently put as an “improvement” is frankly horrendous. You separated the Qasimist military junta and the Ba’athist military dictatorship from the overall parliamentary regime, making it wider and taking up more room then was needed and you’ve removed the mention of Qasimism and Ba’athism for no apparent reason. This is completely unnecessary and doesn’t do anything but remove more basic understanding about the regime. The next thing you did, which is arguably the worst so far, is what you did to the description of the Nasserist period. You, for no reason given, removed the one-party mention and changed it instead to “Arab socialist state” and preceded to use the source I added with a quote as a source for this. Now, I want to respect you here, but what is that? Genuinely, I have no idea why you even did that. This is a terrible oversimplification and I would recommend going over the guidelines again. Nowhere in the source did it say “Arab socialism”, simply socialist state. You then removed Nasserist for some reason, even though it is in the body that the military coup was nasserist, led by nasserists, who came to rule Iraq in a junta after the coup. This is pretty clear to say it was a nasserist junta.

I ask that you please, please actually go over your edits before you make them. What you did here wasn’t a one time thing, you make these kinds of low quality edits all the time and all you do is degrade the quality of this website and its pages. I do hope that you can change and edit better, but after all this time, I’m not sure you will. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to provide a brief summary, not every detail that is or should be covered in the article text. Per MOS:IBP, "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... information should be presented in a short format wherever possible, and should exclude unnecessary content." Additionally, the purpose of this particular field is to identify the type of government, not its ideology. As to your final paragraph, I would encourage you to reflect on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It was brief, the edit was simple and wasn’t too overbearing. As of right now, it is too spread out. The formatting I proposed follows MOS:IBP while yours doesn’t as it states the same information twice and has the unsourced addition of Arab socialism. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It was brief, the edit was simple and wasn’t too overbearing. We will need to agree to disagree on that. As to your last sentence, I have addressed these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the 1958 interim constitution, there might be some changes needed so I will go over it and add changes as needed. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)