Talk:Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Forces/casualties

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)

@B14709:, complicated since there are disparate articles stating casualties since 6 June. What's sure is that there is at least 100 dead on each side and thousands civilians fled. --Tachfin (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed B14709 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish Involvement

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)

If I'm not mistaken (and this is all a giant mess, so perhaps I am), the Kurds aren't repelling ISIS in Kirkuk, they took it over from the Iraqis themselves. (Whereas they seem to be allied with the Iraqis in Mosul?) ToBk (talk) 18:09, 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)

I'm wondering if we should open a new section on the Kurdish takeover of the Kurdish areas on this page? Just read a statement of the Peshmerga Ministry on Rudaw [1] which states that Peshmerga have established the Hamrin Mountains as their 'southern border' and that they control the Rabia border crossing and are moving on Saadiya. It might eventually warrant its own page but for now I think it's a direct result of the offensive by ISIS. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, let's talk about the infobox? The KRG should have its own section. A version if this article recently had the KRG listed in the infobox as directly under the command of the Iraqi central government ... which for anyone following this conflict or Iraqi politics in general is laughable. Baghdad has repeatedly asked for assistance from the KRG which has been denied, and the Sunni forces and the KRG have a truce by all reports. The KRG is very much following its own agenda not that of Baghdad. 94.197.121.101 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Having a 3rd column is undue. There has been very little fighting between ISF and Kurds.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet by your own admission there has been. The KRG's strategic aims are diametrically opposed to those of Baghdad, and significant tensions existed even before this fighting. Added to this is the fact that ISIL/Ba'athist elements and the KRG are basically leaving each other alone. Having the KRG listed on the same side as Baghdad, not to mention Iran and all the related ugly Shi'ite sectarian elements associated with them, is plain odd at this point. And most importantly, all main sources point to these facts. 94.197.121.101 (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the correct translation of Al-Qaradawi's quotation?

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)

Structure base on the timeline

I think the current structure may confuse the reader. This is my suggestion:

1. 5 June, Assault on Samarra
2. 6 to 10 June, Fall of Mosul and advance to Kirkuk
3. 11 and 12 June, Capture of Tikrit and Baiji and advance towards Baghdad
4. 13 to 16 June, battles in Nineveh, Kirkuk, Saladin and Diyala provinces

This structure helps to read the article as a coherent story. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need so many subsections. "Fall of Mosul", "Further advances" and "Government counteroffensive" would be best for now, IMO. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Then where should we add new ISIL advances after the Government counteroffensive?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily, they can go under Government counteroffensive, which is not an all-out operation (obviously). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no government counteroffensive at this moment except what they claimed at length on state TV (recapturing Tikrit and parts of Mosul). While the reality on the ground is, confirmed by civilians and security officers themselves, that militants still firmly control Tikrit and Mosul. While ISIS managed to capture a whole city and two smaller towns, plus ambush and decimate a whole Iraqi battalion. Putting all those ISIS gains under the section Government counteroffensive simply is not logical. EkoGraf (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was left with the impression that the government employed the air force and shelled ISIS positions, which probably won't pass as a "counteroffensive" but it's significant enough to be marked as a response. Maybe "Government response" would be more appropriate, because it could include further ISIS operations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK EkoGraf. What is your suggestion about the structure?--Seyyed(t-c) 07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought so to Tourbillon, but following the fall of Tall Afar and the establishing of the fact militants still control Tikrit and Mosul it seems it was all just propaganda. I agree with sections proposed for 1, 2 and 3 Vakilian and I just rearranged the Mosul/Kirkuk section per your merger proposal. As for section 4, I would propose Government response as Tourbillon says, but than make a new section for the Tall Affar and Diyala advances and battalion destruction.EkoGraf (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems good. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the timeline. The reader is going forwards and backwards in time while reading the article. The ISIL advancement in Diyala started on 13 June before the government response and still continues while apparently their advancement in Saladin is stopped. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I titled the final section as simply Continued ISIS advances (so anywhere in north Iraq) and that previous section Advance towards Baghdad and into Diyala (so it talks only about the initial push into Diyala). EkoGraf (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not the title of the sections but the time line of the story. Do you think the current order solve this problem?--Seyyed(t-c) 07:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not seeing any overlapping, except in the Kirkuk paragraph, but that is minor.

Since the advance towards seems a bit small I will merge it with the Tikrit/Baiji section and name it all advance towards. EkoGraf (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Title

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)

Yes, but more than that, the current title is so general that it doesn't reflect the topic. Surely a better title could be created? If I was to search for this material, that wouldn't be what I would search on - this is basically a civil war in Iraq, and the Islamist warring party should be mentioned in the title, at least? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:17, 12 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)

I second that, a mother article is needed for the ISIS-Iraq conflict that have been raging since early 2014. This is more or less a breakthrough in the stalemate that prevailed from Januari. It could be useful later on to create article for major events in the last offensive such as the fall of Mosul and the mass execution of 1700 POWs.--Kathovo talk 19:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing Merging tag

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)

Get consensus on this BOFORE removing, not merely because you don't like the tag. less than 24 hours does not onstitute a consensusLihaas (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

5 oppose vs 1 support pretty much constitutes a consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Make that 6 opposes. 94.197.121.101 (talk) 00:29, 15 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)

It just doesn't make sense. Also, the talk page wasn't assigned properly. I removed the merge tag. - Technophant (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Map

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)

Yes, I agree with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:37, 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)

The situation in Iraq - 15 June 2014

• I've obtained to permission to use this detailed map of Iraq and its factions. The author says he will update it bi-weekly. - Technophant (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Syria

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)

They co-operate in attacking to the ISIL while each one attack in its own territory. I moved the Syrian attack from the "Government counter-attack" to "Reactions" but I do not have idea about infobox.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox is getting out of hand

Infobox needs some serious cutting, this thing is excessive.--Staberinde (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Campaignbox Iraqi insurgency" should go. Pretty much useless. - Technophant (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, its the standard template that each Wikipedia battle article contains its conflict's campaignbox. EkoGraf (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently under "Result Ongoing" we have information saying that Tikrit is simultaneously in the hands of ISIS and government forces. Whenever the pro-government fabrication is removed, it's put back up within an hour. Snd0 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

change article name?

should this article be re-named with something like "Iraq Civil War 2014"? Gabby Merger (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No this article is about a specific offensive within a larger conflict: Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Like Future says, this is an offensive that is part of the insurgency. And the civil war has actually in essence been on since 2003. EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we were to call this conflict a civil war, I think its starting date would technically be 28 June 2004, when sovereignty was transferred to the new Iraqi government from the CPA. Prior to this, the insurgents were fighting against foreign occupiers, not a domestic government.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should separate the 2nd phase of the civil war which has started since 2 years ago and the first phase. In fact, the insurgents had been defeated by the US-Iraq operations before the US troops left Iraq. Then they woke up again due to the Syrian Civil war. The characteristics of the 1st and 2nd phases are different. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

They were never defeated, their strength may have been depleted but they were never defeated. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 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)

How?

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)

From what I've gathered, ISIS has the hearts and minds of the Sunni population and as they come through and take territory, they have young men and Sunni deserters and join their forces kind of like a snowball gaining mass and force as it travels downhill. - Technophant (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Iran

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)

can someone translate this? Purportedly it reports on the first Iranian casualty in Iraq. http://digarban.com/node/18521 --93.137.130.57 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The article seems conflicted. Here's my rough translation: "The body of the first member of the Special Sabreen (bound to the Sepah [Revolutionary Guard] ground forces) to have been killed in clashes with ISIS in Iraq has arrived in Iran and been buried after a funeral. The name of the member of the Special Sabreen, Alireza Moshajeri, has been announced and the the funeral service took place on Saturday in Tehran. Some news sites have reported that Captain of the Guard Alireza Moshajeri lost his life in an encounter in the western Iran at dawn on Friday. Another group of conservative news sites have collectively called Moshajeri the first 'Iranian martyr in the clashes with ISIS.' It has been reported that the Islamic Republic dispatched two battalions of Sepah forces to Iraq to oppose ISIS. This is despite the fact that Amir Abdullahian, Deputy Foreign Minister, has denied the presence of Iranian forces in Iraq. ISIS has managed to take control of parts of western Iraq in the past few days."

So it really doesn't look like the article's conclusive on anything, other than that an Iranian soldier was killed. --Iamcommando13 (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there have been conflicting reports. A few days ago I added references to the conflicting reports, but that was undone. I saw a report about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard helping regain control of Tikrit before Tikrit had even fallen (that was reported by iraqinews.com). So it may be that a few false reports are being regurgitated by mainstream outlets. I'd be in favor of simply referencing the conflicting information again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd0 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• How is Radio Free Europe a reliable source on Iranian involvement? FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • RFE/RL is extremely reliable on everything. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

infobox requires URGENT repair

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)

International reactions

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)

It seemed like an obvious omission - the section is there now. I can add more information later, or whoever wants to.Snd0 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What is part of what?

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)

ISIS casualties (infobox)

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)

Iraq Security Forces equipment losses

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)

Cause

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)

US

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)

I added the issue to reactions section and agree to add the US to infobox.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually disagree. When they do eventually send their forces, we can then reconsider adding them. For the moment this is crystal balling. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Fitzcarmalan, definitely too early to consider adding US to infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Would there be a problem with putting a note along the lines of "troops pledged, not yet deployed" with the hypothetical USA section? --92.232.49.38 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

According to The Independent, the CIA is already in country. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-first-of-300-american-military-advisors-expected-on-the-ground-by-tomorrow-9552777.html --208.253.17.141 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Third column for Kurds in the infobox

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)

This has already been discussed on this talk page. Look at the section titled "Kurdish involvement" --92.232.49.38 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

See above as 92 said but yes, south of Kirkuk [5] and near the Rabia crossing [6]. Probably some other minor stuff too. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:20, 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 missed that :) There have been some minor incidents but mostly it seems they were friendly-fire type incidents [7] (see 5th section). Akerbeltz (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just put Kurds and Iraqi govt in the same column, but separating by a dividing line("----")? This is done for ISIS in the Syrian Civil War article.-FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That would work for me but I have little exp regarding infoboxes involving combatant sides. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• At this point, it seems too early to choose either option, but what would be least controversial? The Kurdish regions are officially part of the Iraqi state, so I guess putting them in the same row is least controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to cram the KRG into the Iraqi government column, if anything. The KRG clearly aren't taking orders from al-Maliki, and more peshmerga have been killed by the Iraqi Security Forces than ISIL in this conflict. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, no need for a third column. The Kurds may not be on the same page as the Iraqi government, but they are still allied with them. EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 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)

Iraqi Kurdistan is still technically part of Iraq. The Kurds never declared independence. There is also no fighting between Iraqi govt forces and Kurds. Therefore, I don't see why a 3rd column is warranted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the Kurds:

i) Have agreements with non government actors such as the MCIR [11]

ii) Refused to aid the al-Maliki regime despite repeated requests

iii) Have significant tensions with pro Baghdad factions [12]

iv) Have specifically accused Baghdad of militarily targeting their forces with airstrikes (a peshmerga commander stated this in a Washington Post article that was referenced but has since been removed from this article for some reason, can't be bothered to find it)

v) Are going directly against Baghdad's wishes by occupiying territory such as Kirkuk—"The federal government opposes the Kurdish incorporation of new territory, but with its forces only just starting to push back against the militants, it seems unlikely that Baghdad would seek to open a second front against the Kurds now." [13]

I have no idea why you are lobbying so hard for no third colomn, despite numerous reasons, but be my guest. But consensus seems to be 50/50. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Ba'athists such as the JRTN aren't really staunch secularists. They're more driven by a kind of nationalistic populism, which often involves Islamic imagery. E.g. the group even defines itself in Islamic terms. It's hardly surprising that a group led by ad-Douri, who was responsible for the drive in Iraq in the 90's away from strict secularism, is willing to make cause with Islamists. E.g. during the Insurgency against the Coalition the JRTN worked alongside various Islamist groups. Even if we look to the ongoing conflict in Anbar then you see JRTN working alongside groups such as ISIS.

That's not to say that JRTN is on the same level as ISIS though. JRTN is a minor faction in the recent violence, and it's role seems to be somewhat limited. If I had to guess at their motives, I'd imagine it's more of a general attempt to make gains at a time when the Iraqi government is on the defensive. Essentially they're taking advantage of the situation.

Anyways, on to sources. Fred Kaplan here comments that "...JRTN’s leaders have accepted the risk for now to advance their own goal of overthrowing Maliki. (They boast that they have been fighting alongside ISIS, but disavow involvement in the killing of civilians.)"

The ISW's blog gives quite a detailed coverage of JRTN's involvement in this post.

Hassan Hassan, a Research Associate at the Delma Institute gives a good reason for this, arguing that ISIS has essentially become a shorthand. It's quite clear though that the ISIS-JRTN collusion won't last though (it's obviously a marriage of convenience), especially given that ISIS has now ordered the JRTN to remove pictures of Saddam from the street of Mosul. MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily buy this [14] but the speaker seems to be suggesting that former members of Saddam Hussein's army are the main players. Certainly, these people seem to be a powerful and well-organised army. Biscuittin (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Article detailing Baath involvement: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/20199 FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 17 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)

Ba'ath loyalists

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)

I wrote this above regarding ISIS and Baathists being together in the infobox: This NY Times article reports on a battle between ISIS and Baathists that happened on Saturday.

But I assume the logic for clustering them (and other distinct groups) together is that they're adversaries of the Iraqi security forces, and it's the least bad mechanism for simplifying the situation. Snd0 (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

ISIS has Islamic ideology while Ba'ath loyalists are secular. They just co-work to fight with Iraq's government and do not have any common idea except defeating the central government.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with Maximum's premise. Near every source on the subject, NPR, Monitor and Times all describe them as Ba'athis in ideology. Furthermore Time and Financial Times take it further and allege that the insurrection is lead by rival Ba'ath and Islamist tendencies and there's now even infighting. [[15]] Unless you've got some new sources that override that, your premise amounts to OR and contrary to WP guidelines mandating that our content be backed by sources. Freepsbane (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, so we need more information on this because at the moment, it is poorly covered in mainstream media. What you (three editors) are saying is that the Ba'ath Party is active but as part of the block involving Islamist factions. That makes more sense. But the one source used when I edited the article seemed to point at former generals now joining ISIS. In all honesty, to what extent those generals were "Ba'ath loyalists" is also questionable in light of the fact that they were military figures whilst the Ba'ath Party was a political organisation. It's obvious that the latter-day senior Ba'ath figures including the president himself adopted a military style posture, and that appointments and promotions within the army was down to those individuals, but there was still the dichotomy to the last day which was that the Ba'ath Party was founded on a grass roots level and the army was thus separate. To that end, it doesn't fall to former generals to restore the former order, that would be the job of either the surviving remnants of the former government, any any neo-Ba'athists from younger generations that will claim continuity. See how this is utterly complicated? --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 05:59, 22 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:

...between two of the most powerful Sunni militant groups fighting the Shiite-dominated government. The battle pitted the offensive’s leader, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, against its Baathist allies and left 17 dead, according to the official..

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)

Nevertheless, the sources, think tanks included are quite explicit in referring to them as Ba'athists. The ideology has certainly mutated since their fall, I think Al-Monitor may have had a report about how they've gone about gaining popular support with a urban Sunni base by being "Anti-Safavid". That doesn't change the fact that some of these neo-Ba'athist groups explicitly claim to be the heirs to the Ba'ath party and others according to Carnegie[[16]] are dominated by Ba'ath members and sympathizers. Freepsbane (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read what I could in a short time, there is no question that the General Military Council is a Ba'athist faction. I remain sceptical on Naqshbandi, the Sufism ideology once again veers from the secular nature (despite numerical Sunni dominance among pre-2003 leading figures) of the Ba'athists. I really could not find anything within the sources to confirm that Ba'athism is one of this group's ideologies. If none such exists, then I must insist that this faction be relisted as a third primary group rather than sheltered by the Ba'ath loyalist umbrella. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Douri's the head of Naqshbandi and claims that they're the successors to the Ba'ath goverment. It might just be a political ploy, but he is using his connection to the former government as a means to try and gain authority. [[17]] Beast had an article that gives a bit of detail on this. No doubt that the Naqshbandi ideology's become quite different than the secular Arab nationalism of the pre-Saddam Baa'th, but when the group claims that ideology and sources list it as one, some sort of neo-Ba'athist designation would be the closest fit.Freepsbane (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I can agree with that now. Clearly not everything in this world is black or white! --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

But one observation though, anyone fighting on a Ba'ath platform will without doubt claim direct continuity from the pre-2003 system since they would no doubt see the ouster as internationally unlawful - much like the current regimes of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all operating on the basis that their inclusion within the Soviet Union was an occupation; and similarly modern Poland's repudiation of its period as the People's Republic (Communist) and claim of succession only to the Second Polish Republic (pre-Communist). But we cannot dwell on this because the Ba'athists per se have no real hope right now of becoming the unopposed ruling body of all of Iraq as it did in 1963. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 07:45, 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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Oppose -"Iraqi insurgency" implies, to me anyway, that the insurgents are mostly Iraqi. This isn't the case. This article is specifically about the offensive that started in June 2014. Insurgency in northern Iraq is nothing new therefore "2014 Northern Iraqi insurgency" would be a much larger article than this one. I'm against moving and renaming the article, I believe it is perfectly adequate in it's current state.

--92.232.49.38 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment see also a move discussion at Talk:Anbar clashes (2013–14) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We already have an article titled Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) of which this offensive is a part of. Also, per Wikipedia procedure we name the event per the common name that is used by most sources, and most use offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Offensive is a not vague. It is an accurate description. The offensive takes place in northern Iraq, so that part is fine as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The use of "Offensive" is more appropriate since ISIS is potentially (at least currently) focused on gaining territory, not taking control of a government per se. Also, this isn't a rebellion, so insurgency isn't quite right. It's an armed offensive. . . . Maybe "Northern" can be replaced if and when they reach Baghdad.Snd0 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vague infobox

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)

Infobox isn't supposed to be very detailed anyway, specific details belong to article text and infobox should just give very short summary.--Staberinde (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Suicide bombers or kamikaze

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)

Excuse me, "heroes"?? You need Reliable Sources to cite to suggest changes in the article, please. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A variant of "pilot-guided explosive missiles" ? --Robertiki (talk) 13:06, 17 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))

We should just call them "suicide bombers". Both terrorist and hero are highly POV terms. Mophedd (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the second part, the definition is highly POV, but: "... are we extending a flap of heroism to terrorism?" ? Proposal: "human bomb" for military targets ? --Robertiki (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Suicide attack <-- FWIW, "suicide attacker" would encompass both kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers, military associated or not. Snd0 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Suicide attacker. Other editors position on the matter ? --Robertiki (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if suicide attacker is more general than it needs to be. if we are discussing people using explosives, suicide bombers would seem the best term. I think we should err on being as precise as we can to what we're referring to. I think the RS tend to favor suicicde bomber as a general term, so we should lean toward that usage. As per the previous comments, I don't find suicide bomber to be biased in terminology. It is a description of mode of attack, not valuation of the attacker (like terrorist/"hero" would be. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Advance

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)

Request for a split

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)

Immense in square km, not in real impact : human resources or financial resources. Yug (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an article titled Anbar campaign (2013–14). EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tikrit

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)

Key/Legend for the map?

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)

[events] The image there is a similar map with a legend, and also includes Syria. --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Tikrit

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 also agree with the suggestion. Everyking (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like edits are tapering off some. Either less is happening, it's a transition phase of events, or most news outlets have already gotten bored... maybe all three. I'll help with the next article. Snd0 (talk) 02:40, 3 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)

If this article was called the 2014 Iraq crisis I would agree with you Fitz, however its not. This article is about the ISIS offensive that was started with the assault on Samarra and Mosul. At the moment, ISIS is not making any new offensive combat operations in Iraq since securing the refinery on 25 June. Instead, we have had the Iraqi Army go on the offensive (and it has been called the Iraqi Army offensive or counter-offensive in the media - Wikipedia policy on common names). EkoGraf (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with renaming the article to 2014 Iraq crisis or something similar. I even thought about making a move request for that purpose. I believe it is too premature to suggest that ISIS won't be conducting any new offensive. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem in your proposal is that the most common name in the media that referred to the June events in northern Iraq was an ISIS offensive (Wikipedia policy I mentioned before). And I have not denied the possibility that ISIS may launch a new offensive, however that would be, like we both said, a NEW offensive, thus a new article would be needed. In any case, since we have a majority consensus based on the current sources and events I will soon close the article if no new developments arrise and create an article for Tikrit. EkoGraf (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other topics that would need their own article besides Tikrit? Kurdish and Shia involvement/reactions perhaps? --92.232.49.38 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Then in that case I believe it would be wise to create an umbrella article for both these events and the Anbar campaign. That way you can consider creating as many subarticles as you want. Until then, I think it is best to wait. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There is already an umbrella article. Its called Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal), which all of these events are a part of collectively. I'm not seeing anything else 92.232...EkoGraf (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I've previously explained how it is strange to consider this to part of the Iraqi insurgency (see this section above) but unfortunately no one replied. It appears there is a problem on similar articles here on Wikipedia where editors become eventually unable to specify an end date, and I fear that Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) will always have present in its infobox because of this. I don't mind closing this article soon because it would save us a lot of problems in the future, but I think the same should be done with the insurgency article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The insurgency, about which that article talks about, never ended. It may have slowed down a bit for a time, but it never ended. 500+ people continued to die on a monthly basis since the US withdrew. I don't think you will be able to find sources that say the insurgency ended. P.S. An insurgency is not just random attacks on a daily basis. Per definition, an insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority. You have had insurgencies throughout history where insurgents attempt to take ground and hold it (like now in Iraq). And yes, the common name for the militants in Iraq in the reliable news media is still insurgents. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually British media seem to favour the term "militants" --92.232.49.38 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Common name is the most widely used generally in the media (not exclusively limited to one country's media). EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also militant, being a rough synonym of extremist, may go against maintaining a neutral POV, even though that label may fit ISIS. Snd0 (talk) 22:10, 4 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)

If this information is confirmed (ISIS may be issuing passports and al-Baghdadi feels comfortable enough to be seen in public) then possibly their push for more territory could have shifted to defense. If they're actually setting up a country (government, services, etc.) maybe a separate article is needed for that. Snd0 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

August's clashes

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)

It's being covered to an extent at Battle of Sinjar, but it seems to me a broader article is needed to fully cover recent events. Everyking (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yazidi exodus and international response

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)

2014 Iraq conflict (this is about the broader conflict including events earlier this year), Battle of Sinjar, and Yazidi genocide are all articles where recent events can be covered. Hello32020 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I appreciate it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this June only or a continuing battle

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sinjar not be a better place for the Aug developments? Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I fixed all these issues and reverted the title to the long standing title (removed word June). The offensive continues in the Northern parts of Iraq in Aug 2014 with no need for another article at this time. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What's happening this month is a new offensive aimed at the Kurdish northern regions, separate from the offensive back in June that was aimed at the Sunni north-central region (with which this article deals with). There was no continues offensive in July. EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I get that this is a second offensive, but it's part of the exact same military conflict as in June. There needs to be a single primary ISIS/Iraq conflict article that covers the whole thing without creating new articles every time the conflict shifts or changes months. Coinmanj (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the current division is fully correct. Although a case can be made that they are separate offensives, it's part of one war with one primary goal, gaining territory for their desired Islamic state. The biggest issue is that there doesn't seem to be an article for that overall war. Also, were all of the targets in August really Kurdish (as it says in the lede of Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014))? Superm401 - Talk 03:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)