Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
I disagree. There are no reliable sources that suggest ISI was an actual state, just like there are no sources that support the same organization now known as ISIL is a state today. Removing it again now, and anyone that reinserts will be reported for POV pushing supporting terrorists. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
There are already two other infoboxes in the article. It's not at all clear that adding a third improves the article. In my judgment it simply adds unnecessary clutter. EastTN (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Firstly: Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia, and the first requirement of an encyclopedia is to be consistent, clear, and not-contradicting-itself. If ISI is an (unrecognized) state, that should be clearly mentioned in the lead section of the article, which is not the case. In stead, some editors try to smuggle that assertion in, by using an ‘infobox’ on the sideline of the article but that makes the article confusing, inconsistent and therefore unclear. Perhaps an infobox may be used to convey minor details that aren’t mentioned in the text elsewhere, but it may NOT be used to smuggle in vital, essential ‘information’ into the article, because that makes the article inconsistent—even degrades the ‘encyclopedia article’ in just a ‘page’ with rather chaotic quasi-information. An inconsistent encyclopedia is no encyclopedia: being consistent and clear is indispensable, basic, a conditio sine qua non for any encyclopedia. An editor therefore who, after reading this warning, still deliberately distorts a consistent Wiki-article into inconsistency (like contradiction, chaos, vagueness), by abuse of an infobox must be designated as an enemy of Wikipedia, and probably banned from working any longer on Wikipedia.
Secondly: ‘unrecognized state’ is a linguistic construction consisting of a noun: ”state”, and an adjective: “unrecognized”; linked together. This means, that an entity must be both to be called ‘unrecognized state’: it must be a ‘state’, and also ‘unrecognized’ as such. (Just like a “black cat” must be both ‘black’ and ‘cat’ otherwise it can’t be a ‘black cat’. Just being ‘black’ is not enough.) Now, let’s see: was ISI a state? While List of historical unrecognized states refers to ‘geopolitics’ I assume that the word ‘state’ is being meant as in State (polity): “organized community under one government” (Oxford Dictionary). Sorry, ISI does not look to me like that. If anyone asserts ISI to have been such a “state”, I’d like to see convincing sources saying so. Editor 205etc on 21 January said: ‘yes, they were a state, because in 2006-2008 they controlled some Sunni areas’. All I can find in that respect is that in autumn 2006 they would have ‘taken over’ Baqubah (see FORCE 5-20 (…..) (under section ‘A Commander’s Perspective’) ). Perhaps they also ‘controlled’ that town (what is ‘control’?) but even then: is one city a ‘state’? And: how do we know there was an “organized community under one government” in that one town or state? As I said: I’d like to see a convincing source. Ofcourse, ISI calls itself: ‘state’. But that is a linguistical trick to let us believe that, or at least doubt whether, they are a ‘state’. Other words for such tricking-with-language are: rhetorics, or propaganda.
Corriebertus as far as I could find, there is not a single reliable source which recognised ISI to be a state or even an unrecognised state. I gather the issues you have raised have now been solved since the article has a war faction infobox. Mbcap (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Somalialand is a classic unrecognized state for it is a state with no 3rd party government recognition. ISI/ISIL is a terrorist group that pretends to have a state. Occupation or temporary control of somewhere does not a state make, any more than bank robbers taking over a bank for a time turns them into bankers. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I’ve today organized article Islamic State of Iraq.
The vast majority of the information from the old version is still present in the article, but due to my (re)organizing—and sometimes my correcting of presumed ‘information’ taken from a certain reference source—‘old’ information may not always be easily retraceable in the ‘new’, organized version of the article.
Therefore, I’ve made this list, standing below, giving for most old reference source numbers the new number of that same ref source in the new version.
I’ve re-read almost all ref sources, which quite often resulted in an improved, or corrected, summary of it in the article. Not every ‘old’ ref source and their (supposed) information has (completely) returned in the new, organized version of the article: apart from the cases where I simply have corrected their information’s summary—which will be have to be self-evident—the other exceptions are explained and accounted for in subjoined list. If you disagree with some information being discarded as irrelevant by me, please put it back into the now organized article. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
New ref number, or reason why the ‘old’ ref and its info is replaced to another Wiki-article, or its information now conveyed with another ref or Wikilink, or left out, etc.
1
1
2
irrelevant: personal opinion of an editor
3
2
4
15; (part of the info from that ref source is also placed in article Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn ('al-Qaeda in Iraq') ref. 29 (section ‘Strength AQI in 2006’))
5
not relevant for the purpose it was used for in this article
59; (NYTimes,10Aug2014) (part of the info from that ref source is also placed, 1 Feb 2015, in article Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, section ’Background’, ref 17)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was asked by User:Corriebertus whether this article is B or C class. Looking at it again, I have concerns about comprehensiveness of this article (see WP:ASSESS, "The article reasonably covers the topic"). What is missing? An article about a state unit should cover more than what we have here. This article focuses on two topics: structure and history. Where is a section on ISI economy? Culture? Those are two big gaps that appear in my scan of this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reacting. My question actually was: how are decisions reached to assess an article as C class? I assume now, that it was a personal assessment of Piotrus. Nevertheless -- Piotrus observes here, that we are missing sections on economy and on culture of the "state unit" ISI. But, sorry: we don't define ISI as state unit, we define it as a "group", as you can read in the article. Piotrus would perhaps like to see sections on economy or culture of the group ISI, but why then would he presume that such things even exist/existed? 'Economy' can perhaps be understood as to be presented in section 2.4 'Funding and financing', 'culture' perhaps under section 2.2 'Goals'. We've just been trying to present here all the information about ISI that we could find, and apparently there was not much more to find (yet) about the group's (presumed) 'culture' and 'economy'. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Islamic State 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:
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic State of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic State of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic State of Iraq's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic State of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I checked the article that was the attached source for the flag but it never mentioned ISI or the weird gray on the flag? :3 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
They used the white and black seal, it depended on who sowed the flag.
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was told to take it up here and show the proof that I have of it being inaccurate, the ISI flag is not the Jihadist flag, they are two different flags, my recreation is the accurate version of the flag as seen here (Grey seal, non bolded text) NOT A "faded" flag.
as seen here clearly in one of their videos, the flag indeed has a grey seal and text that is not bolded, (similar to my recreation of the flag)(my recreation that i tried my best to grey the seal and unbold the text on)its seen here again,
The Islamic State of Iraq didn't specify the seal of Mohammed is grey or not. So I figure, "Why not use both flags?" Here's an image of the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq with a white seal of Mohammed: Rod Coffey holding a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, 2008Buddy731 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
