Talk:Abdul-Karim Qasim

assassination or show trial?

In the article, it says: "Another assassination attempt, motivated by suspected pan-Arabist influence and state control over the petroleum sector, was carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA in on February 9, 1963. Qasim was killed after a show trial on February 9, 1963." I think these two are mutually exclusive. You can't get killed after a show trial, by assassination, can you?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.130.57.172 (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

revealed British & USA backing for the coup

Declassified UK cabinet papers of 1963 printed in The Guardian on 1 January 1994, p5 revealed British & USA backing for the coup which removed Abdul Karim Qassim. AllanHainey 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Move?

Would anyone object to a move to Abd al-Karim Qasim, which is a more accurate form as well as that used in academic works such as Hanna Batatu's Old Social Classes and Charles Tripp's A History of Iraq? Palmiro | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is also the spelling in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Library of Congress catalog. Another vote for a move. --Cam 16:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has objected in more than a year, so I did the move. Please inform me if I did anything wrong etc. --Magabund 16:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

British & USA backing for Qasim coup in Guardian

AllanHainey the article you mention:

"Declassified UK cabinet papers of 1963 printed in The Guardian on 1 January 1994, p5

In which you wrote:

revealed British & USA backing for the coup which removed Abdul Karim Qassim." does not seem to exist.

I did a Lexis-Nexus search and this is the closest I could find to what you explained:

January 1, 1994 page 5 CABINET PAPERS 1963: IRAQ: MINISTERS EAGER TO SELL ARMS TO NEW RULERS AFTER BLOODY COUP EVIDENCE of the British government's strong support for the first Iraqi government led by Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party is revealed in the enthusiasm with which Macmillan's cabinet secretly agreed to arm the new Baghdad regime, writes Seumas Milne. The Ba'athist overthrow of General Kassem in February, 1963, in a bloody anti-communist coup backed by the CIA, was accompanied by the killing of about 5,000 communists and supporters of the dead leader. Less than two months later Edward Heath - then Lord Privy Seal - gave a sympathetic report to cabinet on an Iraqi request for military aircraft and armoured personnel carriers. "If these inquiries reflected a disposition on the part of the new government of Iraq to reduce their dependence on the Soviet Union, we should seek to take advantage of it," the future prime minister said. The only worry was that British equipment might be used to attack Kuwait, but the government pressed ahead with the arms supplies anyway. By June, there was some ministerial nervousness at the "ruthless methods" being used by the Baghdad regime against the Kurds. Lord Home, then foreign secretary, warned that the government might be criticised if British weapons were used to repress the Kurdish community. The cabinet slowed the flow, but in September military supplies were again sharply stepped up. They included 16 Wessex helicopters, 20 training aircraft, small arms, mortars, ammunition, Saracen carriers and 3,000 rockets. "These arms are wanted urgently by the Iraqis for operations against the Kurds . . . our interest lies in a gradual supply of arms to meet Iraqi requirements," one minute to Macmillan reads. "I agree," the prime minister has scribbled across the bottom, asking that the matter be "pushed forward energetically". Duncan Sandys, the colonial secretary, reported to cabinet in May that the Iraqi government had "found it necessary to imprison a number of supporters of President Nasser and to execute certain adherents of the previous president." He said the agreement to supply military equipment would increase British influence in Iraq.

More articles:

• Remember: Saddam was our man
• Ex-U.S. Official Says CIA Aided Baathists

04:27, 30 September 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by travb (talk • contribs).

POV Tag

Many sections of this article express POV, such as the following snippet:

"Qassim’s accomplishments are too many to include here in memory of his death. His accomplishments did not only include those in relation to politics and economy, but they covered a large range of improvements with regard to social services, legal system, agriculture, health and education, construction and the arts. Considering the short term of his leadership (four and a half years) and the youngest experience in the life of the Iraqi Republic, Qassim’s era brought the highest number of accomplishments and positive changes to Iraq compared with eras that preceded and followed him."

The claims made in the sections "Death," "After Death" and "Accomplishments" should be more precisely stated and qualified. Regardless of their accuracy, they lack citation and are written in such generalities that they constitute POV. In addition, the aforementioned sections contain several grammatical and spelling errors. Since the sections require revision in the first place, however, I did not fix these errors. Thucydides411 07:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In its current form, this article is definitely not up to Wikipedia standards. Chrisahn 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

US support for Baathists?

What are the sources that show the US supported the Baathist coup ? The first source is an essay without citations created in 97, the second source also is without any citations. 7 December 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.95.200 (talk • contribs).

To my knowledge, most of it is recollections by individuals who claim to have been involved. I really don't know the extent of CIA involvement, as there's never been anything official declassified. Given that, I'm somewhat skeptical of how deeply they were actually involved. It's quite probable that they handed off lists of Iraqi communists, but other than that, there's really know way to know anything with certainty. Mattm1138 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like historic revisionism considering the U.S. and Western attitudes towards Baathist Party and the position of the Baathist Party towards regional ally Israel. Furthermore the Baathist PArty of Iraq supported nationalization and increased involvement in anti-western movements as well as a non-aligned position that allowed them to have close ties to the Soviets while not becoming a sattelite. 21 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.237.41 (talk • contribs)

Actually the US did support the coup not out of ideologically similitude but because of a shared anti-communist goal (the Ba'athists were anti-communist Arab socialists) and many in the US intelligence community preferred a Ba'athist government as the lesser of two evils than an Iraq within the Soviet bloc one with communist support, even if the Ba'athists had ties with the Soviets (which is different from being in the Soviet bloc). However, whether they were involved in the coup is another matter. A major US official from that time is on record as saying that the coup is in America's favor though it's not clear if they should take too much credit for it. That shows that at the very least, the coup was a welcome development for the US regarding a country that was previously a key part of the major Middle Eastern pro-Western alliance of the time - the Baghdad Pact, only to lose it in a communist friendly coup in 1958. 192.207.162.108 (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed the following to talk

Unreferenced material:

He is still praised for his unselfishness by the Iraqi people: It is said that he died without owning anything, that he slept in his office in the Ministry of Defense and he used to give half his salary to his sister to cook lunches for him. During his rule he started many very serious attempts to develop the country and to improve its infrastructure.

Unreferenced POV:

His accomplishments did not only include those in relation to politics and economy, but they covered a large range of improvements with regard to social services, legal system, agriculture, health and education, construction and the arts. Considering the short term of his leadership (four and a half years) and the youngest experience in the life of the Iraqi Republic, Qassim’s era brought the highest number of accomplishments and positive changes to Iraq compared with eras that preceded and followed him.

Original research:

A source in the First Branch of Iraq’s Directorate of Security told this writer in 1967 that some 340 Communists died at the time. A well-placed foreign diplomatic observer, who does not wish to be identified, set the total death toll in the neighborhood of 1,500. The figure includes the more than one hundred soldiers who fell inside the Ministry of Defense and “a good lot of Communists.”

Unreferenced POV:

He left Kafr Qasem with the reputation of a disciplinarian, meticulous and honest.

Confusing paragraph, not sure what writer is refering to:

The Iraqi Communist Party championed Qassim throughout his rule, despite the steps he took against it, he tried to make a national government without any political influence from any party. It later appeared that Qassim's move against the Communist Party was his biggest mistake, since he was left with no means to mobilise ordinary people to defend his regime when the Ba’ath Party launched a coup in 1963.

Qassim succeeded in the struggle against Egypt's Nasser. Gamal Abdel Nasser stated, “No doubt the fact that he had incurred my displeasure weighed against his position. But in the direct contest I was thwarted; I grudgingly acknowledged my defeat, just as I have since acknowledged defeat against other opponents in the Middle East arena.”

POV tone:

Qassim had the very difficult mission of steering Iraq through that era when pro-Arab nationalism was at its peak of power in the Arab world, especially after the formation of U.A.R between Egypt and Syria under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On coup sources

Of the sites listed, none are from a prudent, verifiable website. Of the content, it concerns the claim of an NSA official who resigned in protest of Nixon's Vietnam War policies and became a habitual critic of US foreign policy who is ostensibly reporting third-hand information. This is little better than a rumor, and certainly not enough to flatly assert as fact that the CIA backed it. There has been no actual proof of this claim published. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The websites are reporting previously published material and do give the references. Your POV that the CIA did not assist in a coup is not a verifiable source that they did not. There are four sources of whatever quality that assert they did, you have at least to provide some that assert that they did not and even then we report the controversy, not delete one viewpoint. Dabbler (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to provide a source that says "the CIA did not support the coup" because that is asking to prove a negative. It is not proper to link to blogs or to unverifiable, unreliable, sources per Wikipedia policy (and general good sourcing guidelines). None of the links provided fit that standard. If a New York Times link is found that gives the NSA official's comment, it can go in, but it would need to be heavily qualified. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we report the controversy not try and pretend that no one has ever suggested that the CIA was involved. I changed the article to reflect that. You cannot deny that there have been reports for decades that the CIA was involved, regardless of whether it was true or not, and this is therefore relevant and should be included. If you can't even find a sourced statement that the CIA was not involved, then you should not be deleting sourced content. Dabbler (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting that one should prove a negative in order to propagate some contrived "debate". It is not relevant that some random official says he heard third-hand what the CIA supposedly did any more than it is relevant to the issue of bin Laden's biography that a random 21st century British politician said that the CIA supported him, in light of the noticeable failure to produce evidence on that point. Spurious accusations with no proof have no place inside an encyclopedia, and in any case (as I already noted) the links themselves are not proper. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reports are numerous, the references are from reputable sources, they just don't match your POV. Dabbler (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply asserting as much is not adequate, and this doesn't address what I am actually saying. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this article is relying largely on Morris to say things there is no published proof of. Links from random web sites don't pass muster with WP:RS, much less Newsmax, which has about as much credibility as "Common Dreams". I notice also how this isn't even referring to the same incident; it seems as if you went on a desperate Google search to get something to stick and sufficed for similarly spurious information on a previous incident. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I copied the information and link from Saddam Hussein where it is considered to be an acceptable reference. Perhaps you had better go over there and start deleting referenced material from that article too. Dabbler (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt (and I do not know why anyone should not) that there are a great number of Wikipedia articles that are improperly sourced (at least in parts), especially on such very contentious matters. Regarding the issue of Google, it was perhaps an unfair characterization to make, but it is an aside. I don't really believe it to be my duty to go on a general source-verification-crusade on this web site (lord knows it is not within the capacity of a thousand people, much less one), but this is one issue I have taken an interest in where I believe some respect for minimum standards should prevail. Incidentally, Saddam Hussein is protected. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So I understand from the comment above that your deletion is based on original research, which is not a valid basis for including or excluding information from article. Saddam Hussein is not protected for editor's with a vaild User Name. Dabbler (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I am not conducting or presenting original research, I am using common sense and guidelines in evaluating sources and claims for an encyclopedia article. That is what all editors should be doing. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is your "common sense" rather than your "original research" that normally reliable sources such as The Guardian, Reuters, NYT etc. quoted in websites which you consider to be unreliable make those sources unreliable?

All I am asking is that you agree to allow it to be noted (with sources) that there have been people who have said that the CIA and/or American government agencies were involved in the coup against Qasim and that the CIA aided Saddam in his attempted assassination. You are very welcome to provide other sourced statements to the effect that these allegations are nonsense, but I don't believe you should exclude them completely because they exist. Dabbler (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the NYTimes Article published March 14th 2003, by Roger Morris is as follows "http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505EFDB103EF937A25750C0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=sadaam%20morris&st=cse". I think this clears up any dispute as to the credibility of the blog where this was originally posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.193.215 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

nathanwilllong (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not familiar with third opinion, but I know it is not binding. Second, regardless of opinion, copyright violating sources are not allowed, particular blogs (where they do not address individual blog opinions in relevant individuals' articles). Third, nothing has been addressed as far as the hearsay nature of the claims in the articles claimed. There is nothing here proved or prudent, as far as I am concerned. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute

Viewpoint by User:Dabbler

My opinion as summarised above is that there were sourced statements, albeit at secondhand, that the CIA was involved in the coup which overthrew Qasim. In this edit [1], User:129.71.73.243 deleted all sourced references to the CIA and its involvement in the coup because he did not think the websites were suitable. This is despite the fact that they were copying stories from reputable publications.

Despite an attempt to get around his doubts about the sources in my edit [2] by adding "reported", the references and sources were repeatedly deleted. Rather than get into an edit war, I did not restore the deletions but continued the argument on the Talk page and requested 3rd party opinion.

My resolution as summarised above is that:

"(User:129.71.73.243) agrees to allow it to be noted (with sources) that there have been people who have said that the CIA and/or American government agencies were involved in the coup against Qasim and that the CIA aided Saddam in his attempted assassination. You are very welcome to provide other sourced statements to the effect that these allegations are nonsense......." Dabbler (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by nathanwilllong

....

Uhhh dabbler i must say i whole heartedly agree secondhand sources are still sources and shouldn't be questioned especially when the opposing party has no sources what so ever to contradict them and furthermore i respect u for not engaging in edit warring and for taking it here and i think your compromise is more than fair. And also i must say your opponets sorta wasting my time because hes going to so actively involve in ya'lls arguement but not bother to summarize his viewpoint?? well i thank u for that and i side with u i believe your in the right and your compromise is more than fair.Nathanwilllong (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on the reliability of the sources from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I refer you to Itsmejudith on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Abd al-Karim Qasim who discusses what is a reliable source in this case and also the fact that I could just cite the original articles and having a website is a convenience. As a result I will be restoring the content and sources. If you continue to delete the material, then I will have to move on to get an admin involved. Dabbler (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All you did was mention that you are referring to ostensible mainstream newspaper articles and asking if links are appropriate. The links are not just convenience. The articles are not verifiable because they are coming from self-published sites such as blogs. Furthermore, that is not the only issue. Newsmax is not a credible source and the information contained in the NYT piece from Morris is an unverifiable editorial article that is not backed up by credible sources.

Furthermore, don't delete dispute tags. The article was not sourced to any piece besides these non-credible sources and it is clear that there is a legitimate dispute going on. This is not your article to own. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, the deletion was a mistake, not deliberate, in fact I thought that you had deleted it. Dabbler (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the apology and am interested in any RfC outcome (though I recognize that no one is bound by it). 129.71.73.243 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Qassem government coat of arms

Coat of arms of Iraq 1959-1965

Shows the tendency to avoid pan-Arab symbolism even more clearly than the flag... AnonMoos (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Leadership

Wasn't Abd al-Karim Qasim the president, as opposed to the prime-minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.215.18 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

qawmiyya vs. wataniyya

Those terms are explained on the Arab nationalism article, but would be extremely confusing to many in the way in which they're used on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Haplogroup

He was DNA-studied. What is his Y-chromosome haplogroup? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

1) DNA-typing wasn't invented until 20 years after his death (and long-range mitochondrial/Y-chromosome analysis was not invented until even later). 2) What difference would it make? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@AnonMoos:

1) His body was discovered.

2) It's interesting. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Map

I have removed a map of supposed territorial claims due to it being inaccurate. I had previously forwarded my concerns about the map to the user who created it. Adel (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Georgio abdel karim

Born in tohwita in 1990, from a mother and a father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.130.222 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and sourcing

I've noticed a number of self-published sources used in this article (for example, Angelfire.com, which I removed). In addition, I find that the sole source used for all of Qasim's achievements--the glowing "Iraqis Recall Golden Age"--is from the War and Peace Institute, probably not the most reliable source for historical facts. To balance what I percieve as a pro-Qasim POV, I have added a brief section on human rights violations under his regime. The fact is, Qasim was just a mini-Saddam, and his seizure of power launched a mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis desperately trying to escape (a significant part of Iraq's population at the time).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

He was in some ways crude and rough-edged, and had a relatively brief and turbulent reign, but to call him a "mini-Saddam" is merely a gratuitous and inaccurate insult. Many of those who remember aspects of Qassem's Iraq fondly do so precisely because of how Qassem was different from Saddam... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it was gratuitous, but I was trying to make a point. No-one wants to praise the monarchy the British propped up, but it was a lot more civil and democratic than Qasim's regime. In any case, I apologize for derailing the talk page with too much opinionated commentary of my own.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Abdul-Karim Qasim/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references. Badbilltucker 20:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 02:11, 27 September 2016 (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) 03:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)