This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
We really need to put some numbers in the infobox. Can anyone find good sources mentioning casualties or the forces' strengths? B14709 ( talk) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the Kurdish militias have been able to repel ISIS unlike the Iraqi Armed Forces. Kurds claim to have retaken Kirkuk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27809051
92.232.49.38 ( talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously information is sketchy at best given the ongoing nature of the conflict but it's pretty clear that Kurdish regions in Iraq remain outside of ISIS's influence. I don't know if ISIS has attacked the north eastern Kurdish areas or if they're just continuing to push south towards Baghdad. The graphic about a quarter of the way down the page clearly shows that ISIS has no influence over Kurdish areas. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Some sources have translated "ثورة عارمة للسنة" to "all-out Sunni revolution". While Al-Qaradawi criticizing sectarian Fatwas( "الفتاوى الطائفية") at the same time and call for "ودعا الاتحاد العراقيين إلى "حقن الدماء، وإلى الوحدة، والمصالحة الشاملة"، وإلى تشكيل "حكومة وحدة وطنية، تنهض بالبلد، وتقوم على حلّ جميع مشاكله". I think the correct translation for "ثورة عارمة للسنة" is "Overwhelming revolution for Sunnah" not a "Sunni Revolution". As I understand, there is a great difference between "ثورة ... للسنة" and "ثورة لاهل السنة"? [2], [3], [4]-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the current structure may confuse the reader. This is my suggestion:
This structure helps to read the article as a coherent story. -- Seyyed( t- c) 06:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems good. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 07:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
We might need to change the title. ISIS has taken control of towns and cities across northern Iraq (e.g. Hawija, Rashad, Zab, Riyad, Abbasi, etc.). It's not just Mosul.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan is right. What is happening since the beginning of 2014 is ISIS/Sunni uprising, with aims to take the entire country. It is also much more a civil war than the 'civil war' that wasn't few years ago. -- TRIGGERWARNING ( talk) 20:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a separate and more serious event than Anbar clashes (2013–14). Therefor, it is not suitable to merge this article in that one. -- Seyyed( t- c) 11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Who supports to merge the article except Lihaas?-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Just him. EkoGraf ( talk) 07:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The caption for the map seems wrong to me. Isn't areas where ISIS operate and not areas ISIS control? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 07:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to define "control". It is certainly not controlled by the Maliki governement neither. While not all under ISIS control, most of the areas showns are mode under their control than under the Iraqi governement.-- Mr Daniel Umel ( talk) 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
True the areas highlighted are all acknowledged as being outside of the Iraqi government, but at the same time sources say that a mix of Baath loyalists and anti-government tribes also control and administer some of the regions. Perhaps adding a clause where it's clarified as territory ISIS and allied insurgents control should suffice? Freepsbane ( talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if there are a lot of reports linking some others and smaller sunni militia to the events, even these reports indicate that it is mainly ISIS as they are by far the biggest insurgent group. Isis and allies control could be a useful addition. -- 80.14.28.165 ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Ansaar Al Islaam and Jaysh Al Mujahideen are participating in these campaigns. Will look for source. Ibn Fulaan ( talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is Syria in the infobox. Syria is launching air strikes against ISIS forces in Syria, not Iraq. I don't see how Syria should belong in this article's infobox.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox needs some serious cutting, this thing is excessive.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
should this article be re-named with something like "Iraq Civil War 2014"? Gabby Merger ( talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there was no "civil war since 2003". It was Iraq War and was international. And no, the plague of sectarian killings of 2006-2008 wasn't a civil war too. Because there was no open warfare, only terrorism and counter-terrorism (not to confuse with counterterrorism, "counter-terrorism" as in terrorism in response to terrorism). -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the article make any reference as to how ISIS, a force of around 10,000 managed to take over such a huge amount of territory? The Iraqi military and police have over half a million men between them. Why did they retreat? Has ISIS beaten them in open conflict? Etc. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the source for Iran's involvement reliable? At the very least it seems outdated. I read about Iran being involved but this was hours after Mosul fell and may have been misreported. Iran has denied that troops are in Iraq. This is referring to comments made by Iran's president: "He denied Iran had sent troops to fight in Iraq. However, an Iraqi source told the BBC that 130 Iranian Revolutionary Guards had entered the country to provide military training and advice." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27847498 -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried to change something and accidently messed up the part that lists Iran as a participant. Could someone please fix this? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering the UK's role in Iraq's history, the number of troops in Iraq was second only to America, the UK's reaction should be included. William Hague, David Cameron and Tony Blair have all made comments on the situation and have all ruled out military intervention. The UK is also reopening it's embassy in Iran, given the timing this is undoubtedly a step towards co-operation between the 2 countries to counter Sunni terrorists. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do we consider this to be part of an insurgency with random attacks that occur on a regular basis? I believe this is a new phase of violence in Iraq, so perhaps a good solution would be to create an umbrella article which comprises both this offensive and the Anbar clashes. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The 1000 killed figure under "Casualties and losses" for ISIS et al. cites an article claiming government casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosignallemonade ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The article does state this though "Earlier, Iraqi army spokesman Lt Gen Qasim Ata said the military had scored successes against the militants in several areas, killing 279 of them." -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The ISF has had very significant equipment/vehicle losses as a result of the fighting in this offensive. From this excellent article it is clear that at least 3 separate M1 Abrams have been entirely destroyed in this fighting specifically(> 2% of all Iraqi Abrams), as well as 2 Mil Mi-24/ Mil Mi-35 helicopters being destroyed, with 1 more unspecified helicopter also being downed killing both crew members. This is certainly important enough to incorporate into the article, the question is where? Nulla Taciti ( talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Could it be added to the Iraqi losses in the infobox? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a section to explain why and how such invasion happened including unsuccessful nation-building, sectarian divide, Syrian civil war, etc. -- Seyyed( t- c) 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Should the USA be added to the infobox? According to a BBC News article "the US said it would send some 300 military advisers to help the fight against the insurgents." -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a third column for Kurdish forces in the infobox? Has there been fighting between Kurds and ISF? If not, I don't see why a third column is necessary.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that he was referring to ISIS fighting the Kurds. ISF likely stands for Iraqi Security Forces, I've never heard of ISIS being referred to as "ISF". -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I made the third colom, as it has become clear that Iraqi Kurdistan is not an ally of Iraq anymore. many Iraqi figures, including Maliki, have blaimed the Kurds for the current crisis [8] [9] . Qais al-Khazali, leader of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, went so far as threatening Kurdish citizens living in Baghdad because he is accusing Kurdish forces of working together with ISIS. [10] . It should be noted that Qais al-Khazali is close to the Iraqi goverment Benjamin 145 ( talk) 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
What sources if any is used to support belligerents? I really doubt ISIL would put their hand with Baath party secularists...There is a torrent of propaganda from mainly Saudi media to make it seem as if this is not ISIL but rather a revolution by all Sunnis against the central "Shia" Iraqi authorities, and ISIL are just a minority in it. -- Tachfin ( talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there is absolutely no evidence that Jaish al Naqshbandi fought alongside ISIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.1.240 ( talk) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This NY Times article reports on a battle between ISIS and Baathists that happened on Saturday. It's not an "all against all" situation, but they're probably not friends. Snd0 ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The idea that Ba'ath loyalists and ISIS are fighting side by side is not only profoundly incorrect and contrary to logic, but is not what is truly described in the source either:
The Sunni insurgency that is storming Iraq towards the capital Baghdad reportedly includes Baathist military officers from the era of Saddam Hussein's regime. A former top military commander and vice president in the Hussein government, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri,has joined forces with the jihadists of the Isis...
The Ba'ath movement and pro-Saddam elements within Iraq perished as soon as the state was toppled in 2003, with its members and supporters joining the surge of movements which had one thing in common which was to oppose the western intervention and to reject any institution seen to be rooted in that western intervention (such as the new regime). With so many of Saddam's functionaries being from Tikrit which is within the Sunni-majority section, naturally many were Sunni to begin with and now some of these appear to have joined ISIS as is specified in the source; however in doing so, one cannot be said to be a Ba'athist since the Ba'ath Party was secular, not Sunni. How else could its counterpart in Syria be led by a group of Alawites. To be accepted into ISIS there is no other faith an individual can have other than Sunni Islam, yet a great number of Iraqi Ba'athists down the years were Shi'ites, such as Sa'dun Hammadi who had been a Ba'athist since the 1940s. So the one-time generals are all-out members of ISIS, and are as such neither Ba'ath loyalists, nor acting as the Ba'ath Party in allegiance to ISIS. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 23:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
+To say ISIS + Ba'athists capture A, B, C is still wrong because the Ba'athists would still only form part of a block which contains other groups seemingly independent of ISIS. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
+Here we go. Evidence that even the NYT is either deliberately reporting false facts or hasn't got its facts right in the first place:
To refer the the Ba'athists as a "Sunni" militant group is wildly incorrect, and might explain why they came to clash in the first place. Rarely does a mainstream media outlet acknowledge that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party was not a Sunni organisation. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 06:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no doubt about that. ISIS probably found them useful as a face to govern cause some of Iraq's Sunni might have nostalgia for their political dominance of that era and connections to the past military. Doesn't mean the Jihadi's would ever let a group full of "heretics" like them govern though. As soon as they think they've consolidated their gains they'll waste no time in turning on the neo-Ba'athists like they did with their onetime partners in Syria. Given all the reports of infighting, that probably isn't too far off. Freepsbane ( talk) 20:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
2014 Northern Iraq offensive →
2014 Northern Iraqi insurgency – "Offensive" is vague. Also, it should use "Iraqi".
Article editor (
talk)
20:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
-- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone got an actual date for when the ISF recaptured these towns? "Mid June" is somewhat vague. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Per sources in article, they were recaptured over 13 and 14 June. That's almost literally mid-June. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it correct to give the same name to "suicide bombers" who walk in the middle of pacific and celebrating civilians, also to "suicide bombers" who attack military targets ? The former are terrorist, the latter are usually called "heroes". Are we extending a flap of heroism to terrorism? -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is correct considering both are suicide bombers by definition. Whether terrorist or heroes is depends on the reader. Wikipedia should remain neutral and not call them heroes. Ultimately it comes down to personal opinion, for me both are terrorists and and suicide bombers and not heroes.- ( Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 20:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC))
The ISIS doesn't really seems to "advance" anymore, aside of local besieged town eventually falling. Should we create a section "Stale", or alike ? Yug (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the offensive has essentially ended as of 25 of June or somesuch since no more insurgent advances have been made after they captured most of the oil refinery and secured Tal Afar. It should be closed as an insurgent victory, as its been described in that way in the news. The government and military also declared on 25 June they gave up on the north. The aftermath section should contain the info on the Army's current attempts to recapture Tikrit. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
what happened in the west anbar area, ithink derserves a new artilce,it could be name the the Western Iraqi offensive,the gain that the insurgents have gained in immense,to let it be included in this page for the anbar campaign. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Iraqi Army claims to have recaptured Tikrit -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 23:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
Nevermind, they've been kicked out again -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 11:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Iraq_war_map.png
Great map but it could be better with some explanations of what the symbols and color mean. 206.192.243.174 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we create a new page for the Battle of Tikrit or is it too soon? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally think the offensive ended sometime around 25 June, and we are in a totally new phase of the conflict with the Iraqi army now launching an offensive (Tikrit), which may warrant its own article and we close this one (with a militant victory). I would wait 1-2 more days but I think that should be it. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't see how the government counter offensive could logically be considered part of the original Sunnii offensive.-- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 20:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the above. Are there sources that say we are in "a totally new phase" and that the current violence is not part of the same crisis that started in early June? When we are close to having a WP:SIZE issue, we can then reconsider creating subarticles. For the moment we can just expand this one and split some content that normally deserves it such as International reactions to the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 09:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The ISIS offensive has not made much progress recently, but it might pick up speed again soon. If it does, should that be part of this article, or should it be considered a second offensive and deserve its own article?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
New events have happened in August such as ISIL advances towards Erbil and the US intervention. However, the article's title looks unsuitable to cover these events.-- Seyyed( t- c) 11:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is a proper place to expound upon these events as they relate to ISIS, the Iraqi government, the Obama administration, and the Kurdish regional government? I.E. Prince Tahseen Said's letter to world leaders and their response. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 18:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The title, text and structure of the article say June 2014 but now editors are adding in Aug 2014 events, including the Aug 2014 airstrikes in the infobox. Would /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Sinjar not be a better place for the Aug developments? Legacypac ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
We really need to put some numbers in the infobox. Can anyone find good sources mentioning casualties or the forces' strengths? B14709 ( talk) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that the Kurdish militias have been able to repel ISIS unlike the Iraqi Armed Forces. Kurds claim to have retaken Kirkuk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27809051
92.232.49.38 ( talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously information is sketchy at best given the ongoing nature of the conflict but it's pretty clear that Kurdish regions in Iraq remain outside of ISIS's influence. I don't know if ISIS has attacked the north eastern Kurdish areas or if they're just continuing to push south towards Baghdad. The graphic about a quarter of the way down the page clearly shows that ISIS has no influence over Kurdish areas. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Some sources have translated "ثورة عارمة للسنة" to "all-out Sunni revolution". While Al-Qaradawi criticizing sectarian Fatwas( "الفتاوى الطائفية") at the same time and call for "ودعا الاتحاد العراقيين إلى "حقن الدماء، وإلى الوحدة، والمصالحة الشاملة"، وإلى تشكيل "حكومة وحدة وطنية، تنهض بالبلد، وتقوم على حلّ جميع مشاكله". I think the correct translation for "ثورة عارمة للسنة" is "Overwhelming revolution for Sunnah" not a "Sunni Revolution". As I understand, there is a great difference between "ثورة ... للسنة" and "ثورة لاهل السنة"? [2], [3], [4]-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the current structure may confuse the reader. This is my suggestion:
This structure helps to read the article as a coherent story. -- Seyyed( t- c) 06:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems good. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 07:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
We might need to change the title. ISIS has taken control of towns and cities across northern Iraq (e.g. Hawija, Rashad, Zab, Riyad, Abbasi, etc.). It's not just Mosul.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan is right. What is happening since the beginning of 2014 is ISIS/Sunni uprising, with aims to take the entire country. It is also much more a civil war than the 'civil war' that wasn't few years ago. -- TRIGGERWARNING ( talk) 20:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a separate and more serious event than Anbar clashes (2013–14). Therefor, it is not suitable to merge this article in that one. -- Seyyed( t- c) 11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Who supports to merge the article except Lihaas?-- Seyyed( t- c) 06:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Just him. EkoGraf ( talk) 07:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The caption for the map seems wrong to me. Isn't areas where ISIS operate and not areas ISIS control? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 07:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to define "control". It is certainly not controlled by the Maliki governement neither. While not all under ISIS control, most of the areas showns are mode under their control than under the Iraqi governement.-- Mr Daniel Umel ( talk) 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
True the areas highlighted are all acknowledged as being outside of the Iraqi government, but at the same time sources say that a mix of Baath loyalists and anti-government tribes also control and administer some of the regions. Perhaps adding a clause where it's clarified as territory ISIS and allied insurgents control should suffice? Freepsbane ( talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if there are a lot of reports linking some others and smaller sunni militia to the events, even these reports indicate that it is mainly ISIS as they are by far the biggest insurgent group. Isis and allies control could be a useful addition. -- 80.14.28.165 ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Ansaar Al Islaam and Jaysh Al Mujahideen are participating in these campaigns. Will look for source. Ibn Fulaan ( talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is Syria in the infobox. Syria is launching air strikes against ISIS forces in Syria, not Iraq. I don't see how Syria should belong in this article's infobox.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox needs some serious cutting, this thing is excessive.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
should this article be re-named with something like "Iraq Civil War 2014"? Gabby Merger ( talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there was no "civil war since 2003". It was Iraq War and was international. And no, the plague of sectarian killings of 2006-2008 wasn't a civil war too. Because there was no open warfare, only terrorism and counter-terrorism (not to confuse with counterterrorism, "counter-terrorism" as in terrorism in response to terrorism). -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the article make any reference as to how ISIS, a force of around 10,000 managed to take over such a huge amount of territory? The Iraqi military and police have over half a million men between them. Why did they retreat? Has ISIS beaten them in open conflict? Etc. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the source for Iran's involvement reliable? At the very least it seems outdated. I read about Iran being involved but this was hours after Mosul fell and may have been misreported. Iran has denied that troops are in Iraq. This is referring to comments made by Iran's president: "He denied Iran had sent troops to fight in Iraq. However, an Iraqi source told the BBC that 130 Iranian Revolutionary Guards had entered the country to provide military training and advice." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27847498 -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried to change something and accidently messed up the part that lists Iran as a participant. Could someone please fix this? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering the UK's role in Iraq's history, the number of troops in Iraq was second only to America, the UK's reaction should be included. William Hague, David Cameron and Tony Blair have all made comments on the situation and have all ruled out military intervention. The UK is also reopening it's embassy in Iran, given the timing this is undoubtedly a step towards co-operation between the 2 countries to counter Sunni terrorists. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do we consider this to be part of an insurgency with random attacks that occur on a regular basis? I believe this is a new phase of violence in Iraq, so perhaps a good solution would be to create an umbrella article which comprises both this offensive and the Anbar clashes. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The 1000 killed figure under "Casualties and losses" for ISIS et al. cites an article claiming government casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosignallemonade ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The article does state this though "Earlier, Iraqi army spokesman Lt Gen Qasim Ata said the military had scored successes against the militants in several areas, killing 279 of them." -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The ISF has had very significant equipment/vehicle losses as a result of the fighting in this offensive. From this excellent article it is clear that at least 3 separate M1 Abrams have been entirely destroyed in this fighting specifically(> 2% of all Iraqi Abrams), as well as 2 Mil Mi-24/ Mil Mi-35 helicopters being destroyed, with 1 more unspecified helicopter also being downed killing both crew members. This is certainly important enough to incorporate into the article, the question is where? Nulla Taciti ( talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Could it be added to the Iraqi losses in the infobox? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a section to explain why and how such invasion happened including unsuccessful nation-building, sectarian divide, Syrian civil war, etc. -- Seyyed( t- c) 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Should the USA be added to the infobox? According to a BBC News article "the US said it would send some 300 military advisers to help the fight against the insurgents." -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 10:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a third column for Kurdish forces in the infobox? Has there been fighting between Kurds and ISF? If not, I don't see why a third column is necessary.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that he was referring to ISIS fighting the Kurds. ISF likely stands for Iraqi Security Forces, I've never heard of ISIS being referred to as "ISF". -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I made the third colom, as it has become clear that Iraqi Kurdistan is not an ally of Iraq anymore. many Iraqi figures, including Maliki, have blaimed the Kurds for the current crisis [8] [9] . Qais al-Khazali, leader of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, went so far as threatening Kurdish citizens living in Baghdad because he is accusing Kurdish forces of working together with ISIS. [10] . It should be noted that Qais al-Khazali is close to the Iraqi goverment Benjamin 145 ( talk) 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
What sources if any is used to support belligerents? I really doubt ISIL would put their hand with Baath party secularists...There is a torrent of propaganda from mainly Saudi media to make it seem as if this is not ISIL but rather a revolution by all Sunnis against the central "Shia" Iraqi authorities, and ISIL are just a minority in it. -- Tachfin ( talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there is absolutely no evidence that Jaish al Naqshbandi fought alongside ISIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.1.240 ( talk) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This NY Times article reports on a battle between ISIS and Baathists that happened on Saturday. It's not an "all against all" situation, but they're probably not friends. Snd0 ( talk) 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The idea that Ba'ath loyalists and ISIS are fighting side by side is not only profoundly incorrect and contrary to logic, but is not what is truly described in the source either:
The Sunni insurgency that is storming Iraq towards the capital Baghdad reportedly includes Baathist military officers from the era of Saddam Hussein's regime. A former top military commander and vice president in the Hussein government, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri,has joined forces with the jihadists of the Isis...
The Ba'ath movement and pro-Saddam elements within Iraq perished as soon as the state was toppled in 2003, with its members and supporters joining the surge of movements which had one thing in common which was to oppose the western intervention and to reject any institution seen to be rooted in that western intervention (such as the new regime). With so many of Saddam's functionaries being from Tikrit which is within the Sunni-majority section, naturally many were Sunni to begin with and now some of these appear to have joined ISIS as is specified in the source; however in doing so, one cannot be said to be a Ba'athist since the Ba'ath Party was secular, not Sunni. How else could its counterpart in Syria be led by a group of Alawites. To be accepted into ISIS there is no other faith an individual can have other than Sunni Islam, yet a great number of Iraqi Ba'athists down the years were Shi'ites, such as Sa'dun Hammadi who had been a Ba'athist since the 1940s. So the one-time generals are all-out members of ISIS, and are as such neither Ba'ath loyalists, nor acting as the Ba'ath Party in allegiance to ISIS. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 23:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
+To say ISIS + Ba'athists capture A, B, C is still wrong because the Ba'athists would still only form part of a block which contains other groups seemingly independent of ISIS. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 06:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
+Here we go. Evidence that even the NYT is either deliberately reporting false facts or hasn't got its facts right in the first place:
To refer the the Ba'athists as a "Sunni" militant group is wildly incorrect, and might explain why they came to clash in the first place. Rarely does a mainstream media outlet acknowledge that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party was not a Sunni organisation. -- ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ ( talk) 06:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no doubt about that. ISIS probably found them useful as a face to govern cause some of Iraq's Sunni might have nostalgia for their political dominance of that era and connections to the past military. Doesn't mean the Jihadi's would ever let a group full of "heretics" like them govern though. As soon as they think they've consolidated their gains they'll waste no time in turning on the neo-Ba'athists like they did with their onetime partners in Syria. Given all the reports of infighting, that probably isn't too far off. Freepsbane ( talk) 20:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
2014 Northern Iraq offensive →
2014 Northern Iraqi insurgency – "Offensive" is vague. Also, it should use "Iraqi".
Article editor (
talk)
20:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
-- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone got an actual date for when the ISF recaptured these towns? "Mid June" is somewhat vague. -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Per sources in article, they were recaptured over 13 and 14 June. That's almost literally mid-June. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it correct to give the same name to "suicide bombers" who walk in the middle of pacific and celebrating civilians, also to "suicide bombers" who attack military targets ? The former are terrorist, the latter are usually called "heroes". Are we extending a flap of heroism to terrorism? -- Robertiki ( talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is correct considering both are suicide bombers by definition. Whether terrorist or heroes is depends on the reader. Wikipedia should remain neutral and not call them heroes. Ultimately it comes down to personal opinion, for me both are terrorists and and suicide bombers and not heroes.- ( Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 20:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC))
The ISIS doesn't really seems to "advance" anymore, aside of local besieged town eventually falling. Should we create a section "Stale", or alike ? Yug (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the offensive has essentially ended as of 25 of June or somesuch since no more insurgent advances have been made after they captured most of the oil refinery and secured Tal Afar. It should be closed as an insurgent victory, as its been described in that way in the news. The government and military also declared on 25 June they gave up on the north. The aftermath section should contain the info on the Army's current attempts to recapture Tikrit. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
what happened in the west anbar area, ithink derserves a new artilce,it could be name the the Western Iraqi offensive,the gain that the insurgents have gained in immense,to let it be included in this page for the anbar campaign. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Iraqi Army claims to have recaptured Tikrit -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 23:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
Nevermind, they've been kicked out again -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 11:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Iraq_war_map.png
Great map but it could be better with some explanations of what the symbols and color mean. 206.192.243.174 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we create a new page for the Battle of Tikrit or is it too soon? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally think the offensive ended sometime around 25 June, and we are in a totally new phase of the conflict with the Iraqi army now launching an offensive (Tikrit), which may warrant its own article and we close this one (with a militant victory). I would wait 1-2 more days but I think that should be it. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't see how the government counter offensive could logically be considered part of the original Sunnii offensive.-- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 20:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the above. Are there sources that say we are in "a totally new phase" and that the current violence is not part of the same crisis that started in early June? When we are close to having a WP:SIZE issue, we can then reconsider creating subarticles. For the moment we can just expand this one and split some content that normally deserves it such as International reactions to the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 09:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The ISIS offensive has not made much progress recently, but it might pick up speed again soon. If it does, should that be part of this article, or should it be considered a second offensive and deserve its own article?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
New events have happened in August such as ISIL advances towards Erbil and the US intervention. However, the article's title looks unsuitable to cover these events.-- Seyyed( t- c) 11:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is a proper place to expound upon these events as they relate to ISIS, the Iraqi government, the Obama administration, and the Kurdish regional government? I.E. Prince Tahseen Said's letter to world leaders and their response. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 18:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The title, text and structure of the article say June 2014 but now editors are adding in Aug 2014 events, including the Aug 2014 airstrikes in the infobox. Would /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Sinjar not be a better place for the Aug developments? Legacypac ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)