Talk:Flag of Iraq

old comments

I'm sure the official flag of Iraq will be different than what is shown here (Saddam's handwriting is not going to play in the new Iraq), so this page will have to change. In fact, this page is probably already inaccurate since there are new people in charge of Iraq. I'd say that as of 4/24/04, there is no official flag of Iraq.

I disagree: the flag of an occupied country doesn't change just because it is occupied and the occupiers or people under their control say it should. Local news in Germany have mentioned that the United Nations at their headquarters in New York are still flying the "old" and arguably real current flag of Iraq, and that they are not going to change that until there is a truly sovereign Iraq again. I vote that someone check the UN headquarters building every once in a while and that we abide by the authority of that international body.

In the meantime, the "new" Iraqi flag should be introduced as what it really is: a draft for a future flag, in use by the occupying power of that country, but without legitimacy until a sovereign Iraq government asks the UN to change it (and this means real sovereignty, not "partial sovereignty").

The main picture on this page must therefore remain that of the pre-war flag of Iraq, if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and impartial.

---

Little task for someone: draw an older flag from http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/iraq.htm

I got my information about the earlier flags from the FOTW site. Specifically:

• 1920. This is confusing: the order of the tricolor bands changes (to observe heraldic rules about tinctures touching, one reference appears to imply); the triangle is sometimes shown truncated; the two stars come and go.
• 1924: the truncated triangle variant.
• 1959: the short-lived pre-Baath flag.

Just in case anyone's in the mood to draw flags. –Hajor 13:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The new flag can be controversial, but it is much prittier than the rest. It is the best flag on the comparison list. Pedro 00:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The comparison list: Sudan vs. Jordan

I created another version of this image, [[1]], in which I replaced the Sudanese flag with the Jordanian one. I found the Jordanian flag much more appropriate, considering their geographical adjacency and the special relationship between them. --Jeru 16:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of flags

Is anyone aware of the List of flags with blue article as well as 5 other pages of this kind, which are for red, white, yellow, green, and black?? In determining which list the flag of Iraq goes, which of the 2 flags determines the lists where the flag of Iraq goes?? 66.32.132.150 01:03, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest you include both of them, as [[Flag of Iraq|Flag of Iraq (last modified in 1991)]] and [[Flag of Iraq|Flag of Iraq (2004 interim govt. proposal)]]? –Hajor 01:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is out of reality with the Iraqi flag

Why is Wikipedia showing the 2004-project flag as if it were an officially used flag of Iraq? Nobody uses that white flag, not even the Iraqi officials appointed by the US occupation power.

I have to agree. Every press conference of Allawi's government that I've seen on TV had the old (Saddam-era) flag. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the new flag has quietly been junked. -- ChrisO 17:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thing showing the white flag the way it is is very POV and misleading.

About the way to write the arabic words in the Iraqi flag; I never saw the ugly childish handwriting shown on Wikipedia images; everytime an Iraqi flag is shown on TV (even at some press conferences done by previous iraqi govenrment at the beginning of the war) the writting on the flag was better looking. 212.100.178.141 16:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of twiddling to emphasise that the white flag appears to have been abanoned - how does that look? I can't speak for the quality of writing, not being Arabic. Morwen - Talk 20:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think what anon-IP was refering to was the old Saddam-era flag, the writing as it is now seems to have been added by someone not at all proficient in writing Arabic. The words should look a bit more like this (without the vowels, of course). An example of this in usage is at the bottom of this MSNBC article. The problem is that the original CIA flag on which this is based also seems to have this problem, which means thousands of sites on the Internet carry the flag with this type of writing. Photoshoping the flag to add a typical Naskh-ish rendering shouldn't be that difficult... —Gabbe 12:30, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

That "childish writing" was official, it was Saddam's handwriting made official in 1991, in 2004, Iraq modified the font to avoid showing Saddam's Handwriting, the image should stay same, and that's why it was on the official Iraqi flag on CIA factbook. I know that above message is too old, but thought to clarify that. Iraqiedit (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"The flag of Iraq has had four different designs – plus one failed proposal – since the creation of Iraq in 1921."

I don't know, but I'd tend to think that, over time, there may very well have been other failed proposals besides just the 2004 one. Can anyone say for sure? I don't want the first sentence to contain a possible inaccuracy. Everyking 18:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proportions of new flag

The image for the current Iraq flag (the one used by the interim government) has a proportion of 1:2, significantly different from the previous flag. Have the proportions really changed this much? – Mateo SA | talk 17:10, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have commented out the conflicting caption and left a note to future editors. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The proportions are terrible. Also, the red color in the flag was deliberately lightened to a lighter shade of red. Overall, the flag is terrible, but not as terrible as the flag that was proposed before (the blue-yellow-white craziness). --Revolución (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

2004 flag controversy section

Since the begining of this month the "2004 flag controversy" section has been turned into a short "2004-" section, and in the intro "but was never adopted" removed from the 2004 flag discussion. This seems incorrect, I don't believe this flag was adopted, nor is it now realistically "one of the possible symbols for Iraq". Neither the Iraqi Transitional Government website nor the CIA World Factbook use the 2004 flag. I propose we revert back to the pre-December version of this article unless someone can provide a source showing that this flag was actually adopted replacing the previous flag in 2004. -- Rwendland 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the controversy section leaves out another facet of the controversy. As I recall, a lot of Iraqis were very upset that the Kurds got a stripe, but there was nothing special on the flag to represent either the Sunni or the Shia. This reinforced the perception that the Americans were simply doing the dirty work of the Kurds, and helping them gain independence from Iraq. I remember people talking about this controversy, but I don't know offhand where to find a source for it. --Descendall 21:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Source or remove

Interestingly, the flag had never yet been publicly displayed, sold, or otherwise distributed, so the protesters were burning hand-made flags. Source it, or remove it Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a picture here, but it impossible for me to tell if it was hand-made. I think it almost certainly was -- I remember seeing that picture the day after the new flag was first announced, and I have a hard time believing that in that short period a flag was actually printed up, sent to a store, and sold to a customer, especially one in Falluja, which was totally dominated by the insurgency at the time. It should be noted that most pictures of American and Israeli flags being burned in the Arab world show hand-made flags. Apparantly American and Israeli flags aren't widely sold in the Arab world. Either that or no one wants to go out and buy one just to burn it. Descendall 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While the image is useful, it doesn't suggest that the flags are homemade without violating Wikipedia:NOR - the article on Flag burning doesn't seem to help us either. Speaking just on opinion, it seems quite likely as you say that they'd be homemade, or else prototypes or anything else...while I agree it's highly unlikely that you just walk into a store and "One American/Israeli flag please" and drop your money on the counter, I imagine there are many other ways of getting your hands on them - in this case, it could be a prototype, could be part of an initiative trying to gauge reaction the flag handed out several to community leaders, could have been stolen off an informal flagpole at a base, or to be conspiratorial, a slimy leftist journalist could have smuggled it in ;) (kidding, of course) Anyways, I'm not saying you're lying or anything, merely that it seems it shouldn't be in the article unless we can say "The New York Times reported that the flag burned had been made by the culprit himself" :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the blue and white flag shown?

The blue and white flag should not be shown. It was only a proposal by a couple of American appointed individuals. Nobody ever took it seriously.

Why are you publishing it? This defies all logic. This is BS! (unsigned entry by anonymous user at 72.137.207.206)

The proposed flag is noteworthy for the controversy it created, and as an illustration of American attitudes towards the occupation. In this sense, it should be included here exactly because it is BS! --ScottMainwaring 02:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation of writing on flags

For the "current" Iraqi flag (top of page), the translation of the Takbir "Allah is the greatest" is used, but for the flag with Saddam's handwriting the translation "God is great" is used. Which is best?--I assume there should be consistency(?)

I Believe that "Allah is the Greatest" is better as a precise translation from Arabic Langauge cause the name 'Allah' is pronounced exactly the same on both languages english and arabic, but the word 'God' is very Generic on many religions other than Islam, Regards. ColdFire 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But the translation of Allah is God, Allah by itself is not a translation and at some level implies that it's some kind of pagan deity. It's impossible to see why Islam has to be singled out in this way, no other religion is treated like this. Discussion of Christianity always uses the word God, why should Islam be singled out as something more foreign? Yes, the Arabic word indicates its roots, but you might as well insist that Christians use the Hebrew, Greek or Latin words for God because those show the origins of the Christian religion.--212.146.47.250 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just use the same translation as given on the Takbir article, and debate the translation there, not here? AnonMoos 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no transition for Allah, it written Allah, the only way to say God is to say Ilah, which it obviously not written on the flag. Mussav (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilah إله means "a deity, a god", while Allah الله means "the (monotheistic) God". Allah is translated into English as "God" all the time... AnonMoos (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It translated by the west as (monotheistic) God, while the word God it self is forbidden in Islam, and it must written as Allah, and obviously when they made the flag they did it as Allah, Allah Akbar is the first thing Muslims hears when the prayer calling. which it known as Takbir. Mussav (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that the word "God" is forbidden in Islam, as this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. When we translate the Arabic word "Allah" into English, it is commonly done so as "God". If you have an issue with this, you'll need a bit of consensus behind you to make a Wikpedia-wide change. You, alone, do not get to decide that "proper" way to do things. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't advocating that Wikipedia follow Islamic law and tradition when he said "God" is forbidden in Islam. He was saying that it doesn't make sense to assert that the flag says "God", since it would be illegal to do so. Tempshill (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That wasn't clear to me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, I think they are the same, either way; the reader will get the point. However ,Dante ,a unilateral ad hoc reverting of the phrase without seeking some sort of consensus here is not the best move.

Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One more point though, This is only about the translation of the phrase, nothing more. We are discussing this to present the average reader with the most appropriate form of the translation from Ar-->En. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing unilaterally or ad hoc. Mussav unilaterally made the change. I've just reverted it in line with Wikipedia policy... such a change would require broad consensus. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

why would Saddam chose God Instead of Allah? Guys there is no God in Islam, only Allah. and the translation of Allah only came from the west while there is no translating for it, you are forcing things to be like your way while it's not. beside if we say God it will mean any other God except Allah, it could be Jesus which it obviously against Takbir itself and against Islam. Mussav (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a Muslim encyclopedia. This is not an Arabic encyclopedia. "Allah" is translated as "God" in this encyclopedia as a matter of course. This talk page is not the venue to attempt to change this fact. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

so you just want to spread fales facts? There is Shadda on the 2nd L (الله), you can't dived Allah name to 2 words. If you dived the word, it will be like this, AL LLAH (Double L) Because of the Shadda on the 2nd L, not AL ILAH just like you said. the west translated it, which it forbidden in Islam. Mussav (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The linguistic discussion should be kept on Talk:Takbir, where it belongs (as I said half a year ago). See reply there. AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes. But what's all this about "dividing" God / Allah's name? Evercat (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See some discussion of gorey linguistic details at Talk:Takbir. AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at that but I don't understand. The issue of "dividing Allah" seems to come out of nowhere - it's not explained who or what has done such a thing. Evercat (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with the question of whether الله is composed of إله plus an ال prefix -- a view which is very widely (though not universally) accepted among linguistic scholars, but which User:Mussav appears to reject on predominantly ideological grounds (he certainly seems to lack the necessary grounding in linguistics and Arabic historical grammar to discuss the question fruitfully from a linguistic point of view -- or if he does possess some such knowledge, then he's unable to deploy it usefully in the context of a discussion in English). AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of lacking the Arabic linguistics. as I told you in the Takbir page, you can ask any Scholar or Shikeh and he will tell you (التفكير في ذات الله حرام). You can use God as an Alternative name for Allah, but Allah's name can not be translated. I found this (for now), Sheikh who is supporting the translating of the Qur'an to English but with Keeping Allah name untranslated. link. Mussav (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only judge by what you post -- and so far you've very conspicuously failed to explain how the shadda of الله is significantly different from the shadda of اللسان (something which is a very necessary prerequisite for your assertions to begin to explain anything), and so have proved nothing. Also, one semi-randomly-Googled cybermullah is hardly impressive support for your position, given the fact that many Muslims in non-Arabic-speaking countries do translate Allah. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I answered you in Takbir page, do I have to repeat all my words in both pages? this is my answer Again, It's not my problem that Arabic Language is not your 1st Language, you should know what the connection, under the Shada on Lisan there is Kasra while there is no Kasra in Allah, there is Fatha. again, God is an alternative for Allah and not the transiting for it. can you trasnalte for me God and Allah from English to Arabic? God it will be Ilah, and Allah will stay Allah, can you see the different? maybe in Christianity it's Okay, but in Islam isn't Okay.Mussav (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that the Arabic word Ilah corresponds to English capitalized word "God" (referring to the monotheistic God), when this is simply factually false????? Furthermore, what difference does the following vowel make to the fact that a morpheme boundary CAN in fact occur inside lam-shadda (despite your confused denials)? AnonMoos (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually when "God" (with a capital G) is translated into Arabic the word certainly is "Allah" - at least according to our article Allah. Christians speaking in Arabic refer to God as "Allah". It's a straight translation, the two words refer to the same entity. From a theological point of view, it's obvious that Muslims see themselves as worshiping the same thing as Christians and Jews do - the Qur'an is clear enough about this.

In any event, Wikipedia already has a policy on this (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)) which was voted on, on a subpage there. Evercat (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslims believe in the Creator and no one lese, you believe in trinity, try to translate God from English to Arabic and you will have Ilah, and Muslim shahada is there is no Ilah except Allah. so saying God is wrong. Shadda explain everything, Lisan doesn't have Shadda, it has Kasra, while Allah has Shadda, try to remove the Shadda from the word of Jawal, it will be Jawwal, try to remove the Shadda from Hashashon, you will get Hashshashon, try to remove the Shada from Allah, you will get ALLLAH not AL Ilah just like you claimed. again Allah page need to be edited. this is my final message, because I'm wasting my time here, do you want to spread false info? It's up to you. Mussav (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why then do Christian Arabs say Allah? Evercat (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question, but not only Arab Christians call him Allah, see this link. because it's okay for Christians to call him Allah to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians. Mussav (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting but an idea from one man is hardly conclusive. Anyway, I really don't see the relevance of the whole question of whether "Allah" is or is not derived from "Al ilah" - the only important thing is that what an English speaker means by "God" (with a capital G), an Arabic speaker means by "Allah". You suggest that "God" includes a concept of a trinity, but a Jew speaking in English certainly wouldn't think so. And I have a translation of the Qur'an made by a believing Muslim, in which the word "Allah" does not appear, because it uses "God" instead. Evercat (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not every English translating of the Quran is right, this site use 3 different translations fro 3 different translators, and they use Allah instead of God. Mussav (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's my understanding that Abdullah Yusuf Ali used "God", but this was altered by the publishers of later editions. Certainly there are a lot of people who feel as you do. Evercat (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So they know it's wrong, any way I'm done here, if you want to spread/publish fact or false info, it's up to you. Mussav (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've not seen any convincing reason why Allah refers to something different than God with a capital G. Evercat (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

British?

Wasn't Iraq a part of the british empire British? In 1932 Iraq became independent from UK The british used the blue or red ensign on their colonies. The only colony I know who not use blu or red ensign is Gibraltar . Why was not Iraq a ensign flag? --?.  The great Darren shan fan  09:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because it was not a colony, but a League of Nations mandate--victor falk 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Palestine mandate had a British red ensign flag. It was more because the British put in a monarchy almost as soon as they organized Iraq as a territory... AnonMoos 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible; but I thought the Haschemite dynasty was installed in Transjordan pretty immadiately too?--victor falk 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New Flag? (22 Jan 2007)

According to alarabia.net, a temporary flag is approved for a year by the parliament on 22 January 2007. Experienced users kindly update the flag section 82.194.62.230 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly! —Nightstallion 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

yup an new flag... the same with the current flag but without the 3 stars that came from Baath party... 203.99.237.206 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt update :) 82.194.62.230 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New flag's Color

The Flag's script color is lighter than this one, you made it almost like Black. Mussav (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Theres a new flag it has been set and it is the official flag of iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.244.198 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1959 flag

Could someone explain why the 1959 flag is only used in the Kurdistan region? It would have seemed like a no-brainer to go back to a pre-Baath flag, and Abd al-Karim Qasim scarcely sounds like a Kurdish icon. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The pre-1959 flag is identified with the monarchical regime of the royal Hashemite dynasty, while the 1963-2008 flags are identified with Nasserism and/or pan-Arabism and/or Ba`thism, so that the 1959-1963 flag is the only one without a major negative associated with it (from the Kurdish point of view); it is actually pre-Ba`thist. Also, a major positive is that the 1959-1963 flag has a yellow sun on it, which could be interpreted as a nod to the Kurdish flag. And though the Kurds did have a falling out with Qassem, it's still true that Qassem hated Nasserism and pan-Arabism (just like the Kurds do) -- and if given a choice between Saddam and Qassem, most would choose Qassam (I would presume...). AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify - the real question was why the 1959-1963 flag wasn't reintroduced outside the Kurdish area. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 design was removed??

Somebody removed the 2008 design and replaced it with the 2004 design! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestlyriccollection (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see both the 2008 design and 2004 design on this page. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history there seems to have been a serious edit war in here. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

an anonymous trying to replace the new flag of the old flag. Mussav (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can ask for semi-protection? Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 10:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, part of it seems to have been that some of the names of images were changed at the same time that people were trying to update the article. Activity is to be expected when a topic is in the news and the article is linked from the Wikipedia front page, but the shape of the article seems to be somewhat stabilizing now... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an official new flag and its the flag shown as 2008 it was declared that its the new flag of Iraq it not a contraversy anymore it is the new iraqi flag look on BBC0 -- 4:22, 28 February 2008 76.238.244.198

The blue and white flag should be removed!

This is outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.103.57 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't -- it was a proposal which received very widespread coverage and discussion both inside and outside of Iraq. It might possibly be split off into a separate article, though... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the blue flag

Serious consideration should be given to removing the blue and white flag from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.205.120 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See comment directly above. It was never an official flag of Iraq, and it's not claimed to be such in this article, but it receieved prominent widespread coverage. AnonMoos (talk)

Yes, the blue and white flag should be removed, it was never an official flag and was concocted by an occupation to the outrage of the Iraqi people, I'm going to remove it. Izzedine (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- it was not concocted by Americans but by Iraqi nationals, and it achieved VERY wide news coverage, so it's fully notable, and there's no problem with including it in this article, as long as we make clear that it was never officially adopted. AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not and never will be the flag of Iraq. Every "proposal" of a flag doesn't merit including. Izzedine 12:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not every proposal would deserve inclusion, but this one was quite notable, and so does deserve inclusion. In any case, keeping the discussion but removing the corresponding images is very pointless, and serves no useful purpose with respect to improving this article. The fact that you're ideologically repulsed by something, or your eyes are offended, is not generally a valid reason for removing images from articles. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it was never a serious proposal and nothing became of it, it's already featured on the Coalition Provisional Authority page, it doesn't need to be on this one aswell, and please stop restoring non-article based chatter to talk pages, I've noticed you have a habit of responding to trolls and using talk pages as forums. Read WP:TPO. \//\ 16:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- it never had a serious chance of being adopted, once the trend of public reaction became clear, but it was seriously proposed by people in the upper levels of what was the closest thing to an Iraqi government at the time, and it achieved very prominent worldwide media coverage. Furthermore, your habit of semi-indiscriminate talk page deletions may serve something of a constructive purpose at Talk:Arab, but this is not Talk:Arab, and it isn't doing any real good here. AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Two "rv Izzedine nonsense" edit summaries and two "Whatever"-prefixed replies has called your credibility into question. I've nothing more to say to you, "AnonMoos". \//\ - 01:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you have no substantive reasoned factual arguments whatever to offer in response to the indisputable fact that the blue-crescent flag proposal is ihnerently notable according to the standards of WP:NOTABILITY, and is most known for its potential implications for the Iraqi flag (rather than for being an action by the Coalition Provisional Authority), and therefore belongs on this articl[e. AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given my reasons without being rude. You should attempt to reach a concensus before you revert. \//\ - 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus of this article for many months before you came along was against your idea, and you have produced no valid substantive factual reasoned arguments as to why things should be otherwise (other than a barely-disguised version of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT), so by all valid criteria, you are the one who should attempt to reach a concensus[sic] before you revert. AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"The consensus of this article for many months before you came along was against your idea".

Y Appeal to tradition.

Y Consensus can change.

Y Silence is the weakest form of consensus.

"you have produced no valid substantive factual reasoned arguments as to why things should be otherwise [..]".

Y "it was never an official flag".

Y "[it] never will be the flag of Iraq".

Y "it's already featured on the Coalition Provisional Authority page".

"[..] other than a barely-disguised version of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT".

Y Don't question the other party's motive.

"it achieved VERY wide news coverage, so it's fully notable".

Y WP:ITSINTHENEWS. \//\ - 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Could I suggest we stop edit-warring and discuss this here until we find an agreement? Because chances are good we'll both find ourselves blocked if this continues.. \//\ - 10:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- you're good at wikilawyering (or at least you think you are: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It.27s_in_the_news actually applies to current stories, not those of five years ago!, and extent of news coverage can be very valid in establishing what's notable and non-notable for the purposes of Wikipedia), but unfortunately for you, you still haven't managed to come up with one single good valid substantiated factual argument or reason as to why this very well-known and extremely relevant historical episode shouldn't be mentioned on this article. That being the case, I'm perfectly happy to wait patiently as long as necessary for you to try to come up with such a reason -- but taking all these matters into account, the version of the article which must be in place during the wait must be the stable consensus version of the article of many months standing before you happened to come upon the scene.

Meanwhile, it's somewhat useless for you to appeal to "AGF" in the abstract when you have engaged in repeated actions which very specifically served to cast some doubt on your "GF" (such as repeatedly leaving unsigned comments on my user talk page, apparently for the purpose of maliciously taunting and provoking me, right at the same time that I was repeatedly telling you that leaving unsigned messages on my user talk page was simply unacceptable to me). Furthemore, expressing opinions as to whether someone else's arguments are logically valid, factually-supported, or well-reasoned has never fallen under "AGF". AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "deceptive"

It's rather evident that the real reason you don't want the flag proposal images on the article page is that the famous proposal resembles the Israeli flag too much, and/or is insufficiently Arab nationalist (قومي), and that the images of the proposed flag are unwelcome reminders of what you regard as being a shameful episode in the history of the nation of Iraq. This is seen from the fact that at first you were willing to leave the textual explanation in place as long as the images were removed, etc. Yet you never speak of these motivations of yours when you try to give reasons as to why that material should be removed from the article -- something which I would consider to be somewhat deceptive. In contrast, I've always been straightforward as to my reasons for keeping the material. AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The blue flag should stay

The blue flag proposal was seriously proposed and considered by the governing council. Iraqiedit (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Politically motivated edits

Please refrain from adding your opinions and political statements to the article, I removed the paragraph that claims the current flag is the least popular, first it is not cited , second it is unsubstantiated claim, the new flag was approved by the majority of the members of parliament ranging from Sunnis to Shiites to Kurds, the flag is being waved even in Anbar province , the former bastion of insurgency. Iraqiedit (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed some of CS Monitor claims

It was written that there would be referendum on the permanent flag by end of 2008, I don't find this claim anywhere, the temporary flag was to stay for one year, that means up to Feb - 2009, and the parliament do not need referendum to approve such law, also as this article mentions in Arabic: http://www.annabaa.org/nbanews/68/146.htm , this article quotes an Iraqi law expert about the need for referendum which is not needed, neither proposed in the law. As of now, the flag is scheduled to be reviewed on April 30 2009, the proposal is to remove the measure that stipulate the temporary flag for one year, and instead let it to be for indefinite, perhaps this proposal to make the changes permanent. , I also added "some" to Sunni tribal leaders, as not all Sunni tribal leaders objected to the new flag, and as of today, Anbar province raise the new flag, and as you see on their website. the modifications was only for the three stars and the font, those stars were first meant Iraq, Syria and Egypt unification, which does not exist today, later modified to mean Ba'ath "principles" : Unity, Liberty and Socialism, no longer exist. Iraqiedit (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The list of Iraqi flags should merged into this article, they could easily fit together. Charles Essie (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040703084929/http://www.cnn.com:80/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/ to http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090825104845/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=36213 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=36213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

inconsistentDATIN

1921–1959 (ratio: 1:2)

Royal standard of the Kingdom of Iraq, 1930–1958 (ratio: 1:2)

The first flag of modern Iraq was the Kingdom of Iraq, and was adopted in 1921. It was a black-white-green horizontal flag, with a red trapezoid (some variants have a triangle) extending from the mast side, inspired by the flag of the Arab Revolt. Two seven-point white stars on the triangle denoted the two principal peoples of the kingdom: the Arabs and the Kurds. The design also reflected the newly installed Hashemite Dynasty in Iraq (originally from Hejaz in the Arabian Peninsula), who had played a leading role in the Arab Revolt. As such, it was similar to the flags of Hashemite Jordan, and the short-lived Kingdom of Hejaz. Prior to Iraqi independence in 1932, this flag was also used by the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. Today, it is used by pro-Hashemite monarchists in Iraq. 1958[edit] Main article: Flag of the Arab Federation

1958 (ratio: 1:2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.230.198 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)