Jump to content

Talk:War in Iraq (2013–2017)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Infobox

The infobox seems messed up. We got Baath party loyalists on two sides of the conflict, and I don't believe they are even a regular army. Then the center column is a catch all. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to do this a year ago, but they woudn't let me.....

This needs a lot more workEricl (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

first off...

We have to reiterate that the war in Iraq is merely a "theater" in the war with ISIL, in other words, it's spillover from the Syrian Civil War, and as such must be thought of as an article about World War II. This is a front in a world war and it behooves us to treat it as such. Ericl (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Umbrella article

I think there should be a new umbrella article about the entire war from 2003 to the present. The discussion is taking place here. Charles Essie (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


UserGogo212121 hello what these morons Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade --91.134.65.79 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I really like this as the umbrella article. I have also seen this (Iraq civil war + ISIS + western intervention) referred to as the Third Iraq War. How would people feel about changing the title to that? Juno (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Title

Can we change the title to "Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)"? To be conistent with Libyan Civil War (2014–present), Yemeni Civil War (2015), etc. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Iraq War is the common name for this conflict from google search; most sources use the term "Iraq War" to describe this conflict. 97.96.33.181 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone changed the titled from 2014 to 2013 against the established consensus being to mark it as 2014. Can someone ask an administrator to revert back the title and notify the editor in question to start a discussion before making a unilateral move? EkoGraf (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

IP, 97.96.33.181. Your google search includes results that is about the Iraq War that started in 2003. FutureTrillionaire, I support a change to "Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)", but suggest a change to "Iraqi Civil War". The current page at Iraqi Civil War can be moved to Iraqi Civil War (disambiguation). Erlbaeko (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving infobox to a new template

The infobox need some work. It should also be moved to a template like the Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. Ok? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Template:Iraqi Civil War infobox Erlbaeko (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead map split needed and image revert warring solution

Please refer to c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Iraq_war_map.2C_revert_warring_and_mediation_of_a_split_may_be_needed. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2015

The following is a closed 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: moved to Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). No consensus that this war is the primary topic for "Iraqi Civil War", but there is general agreement that "Civil" should be added to the title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


– The current war in Iraq is a civil war. Most people searching for "Iraqi Civil War" are probably looking for this article. It is also consistent with the naming of the Syrian Civil War-article. The current page at Iraqi Civil War can be moved to Iraqi Civil War (disambiguation), after the current redirect-page at Iraqi Civil War (disambiguation) has been deleted. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is just arguments to improve the article (which I do agree is needed). I don't see anything in that essay or in your arguments that deals with the articles title. Keep in mind that "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Do you have any policy based arguments for opposing the move? Erlbaeko (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You're already pointing to the policy that states your title is wrong. It fails WP:PRECISE since there are multiple civil wars this needs to be distinguished from, the proposed title can be used to describe all other civil wars, therefore needs additional disambiguatory material. And WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not written like a news source, we need to keep historical context. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for using policy based arguments. However, I believe the title "Iraqi Civil War" is "precise enough to be understood by most people". A hatnote like: "This article is about the ongoing civil war in Iraq. For other uses, see Iraqi Civil War (disambiguation)", can point the ones looking for other Iraqi Civil War-articles in the right direction. That way we will keep historical context and lead most users directly to the article they most likely are looking for. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If a disambiguation page exists, then it is by definition, not precise enough to be understood, since it can represent anything on the disambiguation page. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome to have your opinion that it is not precise enough, but per the Precision and disambiguation chapter in the Article titles-policy, it is. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No, per PRECISE it is not precise enough to identify the topic. Any page that has a disambiguation page is clearly not, that's wby disambiguation pages exist, because the title is ambiguous, and therefore other topics are also known by the same name. Only pages that do not carry hatnotes and for which no disambiguation pages exist that cover the same title meet PRECISE without parenthetical disambiguators. There's no opinion needed, it is simply a process of logic. If multiple topics can have the same name, then they are ambiguous with each other, therefore, they do not meet PRECISE without additional disambiguators for which the other topics do not also share a possibility of also using. If you understand theoretical logic, you cannot construct a finite state machine that accepts the proposed title as input string and result in a single final state, since all the values presented in the disambiguaiton page are all final states for this string, making the string non-desterministic, as no deterministic single state results as the final state. Multiple final states exist for the proposed title string, making it a non-deterministic title, thus making it fail PRECISE -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No, see the Energy excample in the Precision chapter. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that fails PRECISE. The example even states that Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical quantity ; it uses a different criterion which is not PRECISE to get around that. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it may be an exception to the precision criteria, but that example also states that Energy is "preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people". Same goes for "Iraqi Civil War". That title is preferred over e.g. "Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people. "Iraqi Civil War" is also concise with the title of the Syrian Civil War-article. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You'd need to show that this meets the same exception, and not through WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since it states the particular criterion it uses, (see Primary topic And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs evidence, not just saying that other articles have titles of that format. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the question is whether the term "Iraqi Civil War" has a primary topic or not. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the disambiguation guideline says "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." As I stated in the nomination "Most people searching for "Iraqi Civil War" are probably looking for this article.", and after evaluating the other articles "Iraqi Civil War" may refer to (see Iraqi Civil War (disambiguation)), I believe it is highly likely, and more likely than all the other topics combined that when a reader serches for "Iraqi Civil War", he/she is looking for an article that describes the current civil war in Iraq, and that is this one. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Why not Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)? Otherwise, oppose the initial proposal. The title is supposed to describe what the article says about the topic. There have been phases of Iraqi violence lately, so the ambiguous renaming won't cut it. Under WP:COMMONNAMES, as long as the title is neither ambiguous nor inaccurate, we can use a commonly used name. Otherwise, let's stick the current title for now. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer "Iraqi Civil War", but if there is consensus to rename the article to "Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)", I am ok with that. It is also support for that in the Title section above. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2015 (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.

Belligerents

Should Iraqi Kurdistan be included in the Iraqi government column of the infobox, or should it be a separate column? Erlbaeko (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change it, but if an explanarion is needed for why the Kurds don't need a separate column, I'll repeat what I said on the talk page. Accuracy based on the true nature of the conflict takes precedence over how accurately the map reflects the conflict. I didn't make the map, and I had no say in the matter. The only reason the Kurds are listed separately is because they inhabit an autonomous region within Iraq that has it's own seperate armed forces. They are on the same side as the Iraqi forces. If you're wondering why there listed separately in Syria, it's because they have fought both government and rebel forces. They have no official autonomous region within Syria, which is why they joined the fighting. They want an autonomous Syrian Kurdistan, just as the Iraqi Kurds have an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. Therefore, they are listed separately from the government and rebel factions. The Iraqi Kurds, on the other hand, already have an autonomous region. They don't always get along with the main Iraqi government, but so far this has not resulted in armed conflict between the two, Instead, they, like the main Iraqi army, are engaging ISIL. They are allies. The combatant section of the armed conflict infobox is for OPPOSING sides of the conflict. I know it's can be confusing, and this isn't the first time that allied forces have been given different colors on the map (look at the map for the current Libyan Civil War), but that's just the way it is. As I said before, columns are for opposing sides, not allies and co-belligerents like the Kurds. As it now stands, the war in Iraq is not quite as complicated as the war in Syria. Unless the Kurds start fighting both government and ISIL forces, there is no need for a seperate column for the Kurds in the infobox. I'd revert the change now, but I'm not risking another violation of the revert restriction. Anasaitis (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
While I agree to most of what you are saying, I do not agree that the use of the combatant3 field (the third column) is restricted to opposing sides. According to the documentation of the template, see Template:Infobox_military_conflict/doc, combatant3 may be used if a conflict has three distinct sides. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The Kurds are not a distinct side. They are fighting the same enemy forces as the main Iraqi Army. Distinct does not mean ally or co-belligerent. Distinct means that they have unique goals, enemies, intentions, etc. plus, I'm pretty sure that "distinct" as used in this context means "opposing" or "unaffiliated with any other side". Anasaitis (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
See here for a description of distinct. I agree that they both fight ISIL. Still, the Kurdish forces are distinct from Iraqi government forces, and the info box describes the conflict much better with three columns. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The definition clearly states that distict groups are "seperate in place" and "not conjunct or united". Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region of Iraq, so it is not separate. They are united in their fight against ISIL, and whenever both forces are on the battlefield, they fight together, and have been known to launch coordinated attacks. The definition of distinct best matches the Kurds in Syria. While they have worked together with both the government forces and the rebels, they have also fought against them. They are clearly a distinct faction, while the Kurds in Iraq are not. In cases where two groups worked together, supported one another, or fought the same enemy in combat, it has always been the policy on Wikipedia to classify them as allies and co-belligerents. Columns are for distinct, opposing factions that do not always fight together against a common enemy and have fought against each other during the conflict. Plus, viewers of this article and other articles on conflicts tend to associate columns within the infobox with opposing factions. Adding a third column might confuse them. Anasaitis (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If that isn't enough evidence, then look at the page on the insurgency which proceeded the war. The Kurds are listed in the same column as the Iraqi government, DESPITE the fact that the same map is used. Look at the Libyan Civil War page. The Tuareg have their own distinct color on the map, despite the fact they are allied with the New General National Congress. It is quite clear what is meant by "distinct" in regards to factions in the infobox. Anasaitis (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to add that in the Template documenting the use of of the war infobox column also says this: "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." The phrase "sides" clearly indicates that "distinct" refers to groups that are not on the same side. In the terminology of warfare, groups that formally work together are referred to as allies, while those that fight the same enemies with limited cooperation without fighting each other are referred to as co-belligerents. Both of these types of groups are included in the same columns in the conflict infoboxes here on Wikipedia, because groups described by those terms are said to be "on the same side", and both terms could accurately describe the Iraqi Kurds' relationship with the main Iraqi forces. Thus, it is only natural that they be included in the same column as the main Iraqi forces. Anasaitis (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
No, they both fight ISIL, but the conflict has three distinct sides. The Kurdish Peshmerga is distinct from the Iraqi armed forces, and they are treated separately by reliable sources. E.g. The Guardian Erlbaeko (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Distinct means they are not on the same side. I checked multiple pages and the exact same issue was brought with the Spillover in Lebanon back in July. They only use two columns there. Your are reinterpreting the rules. Furthermore, your source doesn't mention the Kurds fighting against the Iraqis. Anasaitis (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor did I say they did.Erlbaeko (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Your source describes the armies, not factions. It specifically mentions that both the Kurds and the Iraqis are fighting ISIL, not each other. Anasaitis (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, distinct does not mean allies or co-belligerents. Those do not represent distinct sides. We can't just separate allies into separate columns. Anasaitis (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


They are both placed in the SAME COLUMN in the Siege of Amirli, the Battle for Mosul Dam, and every singles article about a campaign or battle where they are both present. They are NOT two distinct sides. They are just two separate armed forces fighting the same enemy. You cannot argue that they are on two distinct sides. Anasaitis (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The Kurds and Iraqis haven't always gotten along, but so far this hasn't turned into armed conflict. This may have happened in Syria, but not in Iraq. Furthermore, tensions seem to have decreased since Malicki resigned, so it may never come to that at all. Unless they stop working together and start fighting each other, they are not on distinct sides. Anasaitis (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
We mostly agree, but I still do not agree to include them in the same column. Btw, I added a Belligerents section. It may need to be expanded, maybe with a description of each belligerent. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in summation, your using a source in a way in which its creators did not intend it to be used, and your Why not? I think I've provided more than sufficient evidence that the Kurds are not on a distinct side. Plus, I've shown that placing them in a separate column does not follow common practice here on Wikipedia. And who is this we? Are you saying your account is used by multiple individuals? The only ones discussing this are you and me. Anasaitis (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no way in which the addition of a third column contributes to the description of the article. In fact, I see nothing but detrimental effects on the article's ability to describe the conflict. The only benefit I see is that it decreases the length of the article, but here on Wikipedia, accuracy takes precedence over appearance. As a member of the military history project, I cannot support any change that could potentially confuse readers over who is on which side. Anasaitis (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add that, while the belligerents section is appreciated, it changes nothing within this discussion. Even the extremist Shiite militias, who have long been foes of the Kurds, are cooperating with the Peshmerga [1]. The fragile but enduring alliance between the forces combating ISIL in Iraq represents a single distinct side composed of multiple forces acting both together and separately against a common foe. Allies go under the same column in the military conflict infobox. That is the way it has always been. Anasaitis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have told you why. It is because there are three distinct sides of the conflict. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Allies are NOT distinct sides. They belong under the same column. The Kurds and the Iraqis are on the same side. I have offered plenty of evidence to support my arguement, while you have offered little to know evidence supporting your own. Unless you can provide evidence that the Kurds are not on the same side as the main Iraqi Army (i.e. Are not allies and have actually fought each other in this conflict), I see little reason for this discussion to continue. Anasaitis (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in summation, you are using a source in a manner in which its creators did not intend it to be used (interpreting the article's description of each ARMY to mean each SIDE), you have failed to explain to me why we should treat this conflict differently from the way we treat other conflicts by putting allies and co-belligerents in a separate column in the infobox, and despite my best efforts, I cannot find any article that considers the Kurds to be on a separate side, from the Iraqi Army. Furthermore, the Kurd's actions in combat during this ongoing war indicates that they are ,at the very least, co-belligerents and, at most, full fledged allies. I see no reason whatsoever to place them in a seperate column. There is little doubt that the Kurds are on the same side as the rest of Iraq, especially considering the fact that Iraqi Kurdistan is actually RECOGNIZED as an autonomous region of the nation by the Iraqi government. Your evidence is not sufficient to counter my own, so hopefully this discussion is over. Anasaitis (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well, apparently more needs to be said. Look, I'm not trying to be rude here, but none of your scant evidence will convince me to agree to a separate column. I just don't see any reason to consider the Kurds to be on a separate side from the rest of IraqI could go on and on about why they should be in the same column, and I have plenty of sources to back me up, but I think this discussion has gone on long enough. It's a waste of both of our time, and there are plenty of other articles that need our attention. I really don't want this to turn ugly like so many other discussions have. So, if you insist on continuing this course, how about we compromise? I won't agree to a separate column, but how about an alternative, like a note on the page or something? I'm open to suggestions. What is it that bothers you about putting the Kurds in the same column. Is it the fact that one column is significantly longer than the other? If so, then collapsible lists will easily solve that problem. Or is it something else? If so, let me know. Let's just agree to a compromise for the sake of consensus. Anasaitis (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been over a week since I last heard from you. It's kind of hard to reach a consensus if you don't respond. Anasaitis (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Anasaitis. For all intents and purposes the Kurds are on the same side as the Iraqi government--not separate belligerents. Raskolnikov6 (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

Isn't Turkey bombing the Kurds in Iraq? Shouldn't they be added? YoursT (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this motion; in light of recent deployment of Turkish forces in northern Iraq, they should be listed as a belligerent in the Iraqi Civil War. Futur3g4ry (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Name again

Perhaps this page should be called "Second Iraqi Civil War"? Because there was a civil war at the peak of post-invasion insurgency in 2006 (Iraqi Civil War) (User: Anonymous) 01.46, 1 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.254.24 (talk)

Not unless reliable sources refer to it as such. See the discussions we had about the current civil war in Libya. ansh666 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Serious issues with 'Belligerents' section

the baath party (armed wing naqshabandi army) as well as SCJL, MCIR, Islamic army of iraq, free iraqi army, and 

   Anbar Tribal Council
   1920 Revolution Brigade[7]
   Rashidin Army[8]
   Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance[9]
   Iraqi Hamas[10]
Ansar al-Islam

Mujahideen Army Ansar al-Sunnah

none of these factions have had any armed presence for well over a year, they all got subsumed into IS at the very beginning of the sunni revolution in iraq they are listed as having these numbers in the article and it is simply ridiculous, all these factions if they still exist have low hundreds at the most (probably of all these factions listed only the naqshabandi army still exists and is not part of IS), they are not players in this war 

   Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order: 5,000+[66]
   Islamic Army in Iraq: 10,400 (2007)[67]
   SCJL: 10,000+
   MCIR: 75,000[68]
   Free Iraqi Army: 2,500[5][69]

for example if you look at the wiki page for ansar al-islam (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam#Iraqi_Insurgency_.28post-U.S._withdrawal.29) you will find this group merged with IS on 29 August 2014 and was official dissolved (some dissented but they have no longer any actual independent armed presence in iraq)

some of these groups, like iraqi hamas, are in fact on the government side!!

this is the issue when wikipedia editors are not expert on the subject, they make colossal errors which totally distort the page for the reader

anyway someone should change this and remove all these groups the conflict is only between IS and the iraqi state, KRG and shia militias

UPDATE: As of 13 Feb 2016 this page is still highly misleading, presenting multiple groups as being on the side of IS when they are in fact enemies and have no armed presence i will just go ahead and remove them... if i can work out how

If the groups existed at any point in the conflict, then we should have them in the section. It's not just for who's fighting right now, it's for who fought over the entirety of the conflict. ansh666 23:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

if you read what i said, i said since the beginning of the conflict this page covers, none of these groups have an active armed presence in the conflict and the majority no longer exist so it is completely misleading to have them listed even if you want to keep some, the numbers and their role need to be changed/clarified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, they did exist during the conflict at some point - the article has starts Jan 2014, while you say that the groups merged/dissolved/whatever in 2014, which is therefore during the conflict - and so they should be included. If you want to put a date next to each group (e.g. "Ansar al-Islam (to August 2014)"), that would be fine, but the dates should be sourced if they're not in the article for the group or if the group doesn't have an article. ansh666 11:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Turkish bases

Where are the Turkish bases on Northern Iraq? Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [1]

References

  1. ^ https://citeam.org/turkish-bases-in-northern-iraq/

Creation of a List of armed groups in the Iraqi Civil War?

Hey!

I wanted to ask if it might be good to create a new page to create a better survey. The Syrian Civil War already has such a page. Of course the situation there is far more complex, but I still have the feeling that the little cleat at the right side isn't enough the create a good overview. There is for example no mention of the Iraqi Turkmen Front. The role of the Sunni insurgents aside from Daesh is also very unclear.

But it's just an idea to create a new page, I didn't want to just do it before checking out other opinions on this. What do you think?--Ermanarich (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it really a civil war?

Firstly, this article does not have much mandate to describe the current event as a Civil War because:

  • A. The Iraqi forces are fighting Islamists who are not and were not part of Iraq's overnment, and hold land other than Iraq.
  • B. There is no conflict between the Iraqi forces and other forces within Iraq.
  • C. Civil War in this case may mostly apply to tensions between Shias and Sunnis.

I think this article should be renamed to Iraqi Insurgency as it is more a case of ridding the country of Islamists, as opposed to something like the Syrian Civil War where government forces are fighting those who were formerly with the government. Thoughts? Vormeph (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • The 'islamists' are a group that was created in iraq, existed only in iraq for the majority of its history, and comprised mostly of iraqis throughout its history, and is still led by an iraqi with a mostly iraqi leadership
  • this is incorrect, there has been active conflict between iraqi shiite militias and the kurdish peshmerga and there is a high state of tension between iraqi state forces and the shiite militias
  • this is a conflict between a sunni group (IS) and shiite forces (the government and militias)

the term 'civil war' is entirely appropriate to this conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.126.217 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, there are actually even insurgent forces beyond Daesh, as you can see in the Infobox. They are of course much weaker than Daesh but they are still there. For further information about these militias, look there: http://www.understandingwar.org/report/beyond-islamic-state-iraqs-sunni-insurgency

mostly those don't exist anyone, they either joined IS or got destroyed by them but the prior existence of Sunni nationalist/islamic nationalist armed groups (alongside salafi-jihadi IS), is as you say, a good demonstration that this is a wider civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.126.217 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC) --Ermanarich (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

New map?

ISIS incursions into Erbil? An ISIS corridor all the way to Ramadi? ISIS in the countryside near Muqdadiyah? Government forces still far from Ar-Rutba? Abu Graib's northern suburbs also under ISIS control? My guess is that some of these recent changes stem from news reports which make clear that you can't simply presume that all the areas between clashes are cleared of ISIS... but that doesn't seem sufficient to explain many of these recent "gains" by ISIS. Perhaps some clarification is in order, to explain why ISIS is now depicted as controlling many areas that recently were depicted as under government control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.24.246 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There was an edit war on Commons, and unfortunately, an admin stepped in and locked up the upload after someone uploaded an inaccurate version of the map. It will be fixed once the upload block expires in a few days. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please update the map

Fallujah has been fully captured by Iraqi forces. Please update the map to show this. Thank you. 117.241.119.117 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Map update

The map that is the main image in this article is very old and outdated, the Iraqi portion of this map: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spillover_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#/media/File:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png seems to have been kept far more up to date (differences especially noticeable around Mosul). Could someone with the know-how update this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.26 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

I stumbled across "Germany: 1 dead" in the table. According to official sources (spokesman of the Einsatzführungskommando, which is the Germany Army HQ for out-of-country missions), he died of natural causes in his Erbil hotel room, murder or suicide was ruled out. Not further specified cause of death, but it's not unusual not to publish that for privacy reasons. https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article146780597/Leiter-des-Bundeswehr-Einsatzes-im-Nordirak-ist-tot.html Also in the report on his repatriation for burial he was talked about as "verstorben" (=deceased) like a civilian rather than using the military term "gefallen" (=fallen or KIA): http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/poc/heer?uri=ci%3Abw.heer.aktuell.nachrichten.jahr2015.september2015&de.conet.contentintegrator.portlet.current.id=01DB050000000001%7CA2SDJL988DIBR I think he can not be counted as a casualty. --79.194.247.165 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Standard practice that when it comes to US-led Coalition casualties we also include non-combat deaths. Check the Iraq and Afghan war articles. This is because they died while being deployed in support of combat operations in those countries. EkoGraf (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone please update the map in infobox.

Someone please update the map in infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.61 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Stubby article

Article is quite short and strangely formatted for such a major ongoing world event. It should be improved, anyone have suggestions? It is also strange how events in this civil war have massive articles, while this one is so short. Beejsterb (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Much of the "meat" of the article, so to speak, is on the Timeline spinoffs (e.g. Timeline of the Iraq War (2016)). I do agree though that it could be summarized in more detail on the main article. ansh666 03:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
A good start would be to merge Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) with this page per my above proposal. Charles Essie (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Template tranclusion

@Bob989898, Shadow4dark, and IbrahimWeed: Please explain why each of you is making this edit. --NeilN talk to me 23:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I do that because the infobox is broken. Look 'Commanders and leaders' and 'Strength'

Shadow4dark (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's broken, then fix it on the infobox template (with sources, mind you), don't just copy it wholesale to the article where consensus says it should not be. ansh666 00:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Shadow4dark: Thank you for explaining. As ansh says, please fix the template itself. Also, please use edit summaries for your edits so editors don't have to guess why you're reverting. --NeilN talk to me 01:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@IbrahimWeed: I did the edit because the date of the start of the civil war was incorrect. I'll try to fix the strengh thingy thing 01:47, 10 March 2017 (GMT) comment added by IbrahimWeed (talk • contribs)
The above post was made by IbrahimWeed and not me. IbrahimWeed, please learn how to sign your posts properly. --NeilN talk to me 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@IbrahimWeed: sorry dude I accidentally copied and pasted that 01:47, 10 March 2017 (GMT) comment added by IbrahimWeed (talk • contribs)
Hold on hold on. There is no difference between the three's edits - nothing was "fixed", not commanders, not strength, nothing. Just the infobox added, in IbrahimWeed's preferred version (with a link to their Middle Eastern Cold War article at top). Now I have to ask: are any of you in control of either of the other accounts? ansh666 20:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@IbrahimWeed: Well I changed nothing except the date. Because the Iraqi Civil War began in June 4 not January 1. 01:47, 10 March 2017 (GMT) comment added by IbrahimWeed (talk • contribs)

Iraq war started 2014?

Is there any reliable source, that is telling us the Iraq war started 2014? I doubt that. The Iraq war started 2003, and it hasn't stopped ever since. I can't believe there was an RfC discussing whether to call it "Iraq war" or "War in Iraq". Who are you trying to fool? --Raphael1 16:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This phase of the Iraq War started in 2014. But you're right, the war started in 2003. In an above category we're discussing the creation of a new umbrella article to reflect this. Please feel free to join that conversation. Charles Essie (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This article covers a specific phase of the Iraq conflict (2003-present), the third phase to be exact. This has been discussed at length and it has been agreed that there exist three distinct phases, this one starting in January 2014 being the current one. First phase covers the period of American large-scale involvement (2003-10), second phase covers the period of a low-level insurgency after the Americans left (2011-13) and the current one which started with the rise of ISIL (2014-present). EkoGraf (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

infobox map is incorrent. Mosul is surrounded by map not showing it.

infobox map is incorrent. Mosul is surrounded by map not showing it.45.116.233.22 (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The map hasn't been updated in months. Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map and File:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017).svg are up-to-date on the current frontlines. ansh666 01:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Although I was one of the people that supported the split of Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) into this page and Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) (see here) I only did so the context of them being separate phases of one war. I've always thought that the former is merely the intensification of the latter and definitely not a separate war. Charles Essie (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The 2011-13 period is definitely a separate phase from the 2014-present period because during 2011-13 it was only a low-level insurgency, while starting from January 2014 it became a full-blown frontline war with the rise of ISIL. This separation would also fit perfectly to the already established template with the separation of different phases of the Afghan war. So basically, you were right in your original actions. The separation does not imply they are separate wars, but different phases of the general Iraq conflict that has been ongoing since 2003. PS You could also way in on this discussion here User talk:Editor abcdef#Military intervention against ISIL where I am proposing a major restructuring of the intervention article (or possibly a totally new article). This article remaining 2014-present is part of my strategy. EkoGraf (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The seperation implies that they're separate wars though because there's no umbrella article that links them. Which is what the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen do have. Charles Essie (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
We separated it because they are separate phases of a long-running conflict (that started in 2003). The 2011-13 period isn't even considered a war per reliable sources but a low-level insurgency. What started in January 2014 onwards is considered a war however. If we would merge 2011-13 with 2014-present, then on the same basis we would have to merge 2003-11 as well with it. Its already been proposed a few times that an article be created for the overall conflict that started back in 2003, which has three distinct phases: 2003-11, 2011-13, 2014-present. I would fully support you if you created a central article for the 2003-present conflict, and would help you expand it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
What would we call it? Charles Essie (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest Iraq conflict (2003–present). Since conflict is the most often used term throughout all of the three phases it would seem. EkoGraf (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'm still not fully convinced that they're different enough to warrant separate articles. The only difference between them is a shift in the intensity of the fighting and the balance of power on the ground which happens all the time in the Syrian Civil War (which is a single article). Plus, they're both quite small and don't adequately cover their important and complex subject matter. Charles Essie (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I can only repeat what I said again. The 2011-13 period was marked by a low-level insurgency and it was called as such. While the 2014 onwards period was marked by the start of a real war (involving large land grabs) and it too has been called as such. Further, I mentioned earlier that I intend to create an article on the general ISIL conflict that started in January 2014, with ISIL's large land-grabs in both Syria and Iraq (which later expanded to Libya, military interventions and terrorist attacks world-wide). And it would be pivotal that this article remain 2014-present because it would be a sub-article in the section on the Iraq front of the conflict. As for your example of Syria, we in fact do have an article for the initial low-level combat phase of the war, and its called Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War (we literally named it a phase). So the Syrian war is also a good example such as Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan. EkoGraf (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
You bring up a good point with the civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War and I guess you're right that the 2011–13 events were a low-level insurgency phase as opposed to the dramatic escalation into full-blown warfare that followed. How about this, we move Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) to Iraqi Civil War (or Iraqi Civil War (2011–present)) and Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) to Low-level insurgency phase of the Iraqi Civil War. If not, we could do an umbrella article for the events from 2003 to present as suggested above. However, the latter might require a team of people working on it and I've been lobbying for such an article for years and have been unable to get enough support for it. Charles Essie (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
My problem is reliable sources did not refer to the 2011-13 period as a civil war, but an insurgency. And it did not have any of the hallmarks of a civil war or simply a war. While the sources DO refer to the period starting since January 2014 as a real war. Like I said, I am willing to help you on creating a central article on the 2003-present conflict. And we could use the central Afghan conflict article as a model. EkoGraf (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I started a central article on the conflict at my sandbox here [2]. I made an approximate draft of all the sections that the article would include. You can check it out and make recommendations or make edits to it yourself so we can work together until we have a proper finished version of the article before we move it to an official WP article. EkoGraf (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Support the merge. This conflict is just the opening phase of the current war, then being, technically, the same thing. This article should be renamed Iraqi Civil War (2011–present). Coltsfan (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The way you put it sounds OR. There are no sources that call 2011-13 the opening phase of the current war or even that 2011-13 is called a civil war. We already agreed 2011-13 is a phase. But its the 2nd of 3 phases of the overall Iraq conflict that started back in 2003. Also, reliable media outlets refer to the 2011-13 as an insurgency, not a war, let alone a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the same local actors that were playing in the 2011-2013 phase are basically the same ones here, in the same scenario, fighting the same people. I don't think this is OR, i think it's the reality. It's like saying WWII was started in 1941 because prior to that the war wasn't really global. There is logic in this assessment. Coltsfan (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It also includes the same actors and basically the same scenario from the 2003-11 period. But sources called 2011-13 an insurgency, and 2014-present a war, while WWII was called from the very start a war. I agree 2011-13 and 2014-present are part of the same conflict, but they are two distinct phases. Two of three to be exact, with the first being the 2003-11 period. And as can be seen here Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) from several move requests, most editors agreed 2011-13 is distinct from 2014-present. As you can see from up above Charles Essie and me have been having a discussion on how to possibly resolve this. The problem here is we don't have a central article on the long-running conflict that started in 2003. Which I have now created in my sandbox and will expand over the coming days. But for the concept of that article this one needs to stay distinct from the 2014-present one. If you want, you can help out by making proposals or making edits of my sandbox so we can expand the central article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The second option better reflects the way the war is currently viewed by most sources and by most Wikipedians that I've discussed this with in the past. However, past initiatives to do something like this have fallen apart due to disagreements over article titles and their meanings, specifically what exactly was/is the "Iraq War". So, we're going to need to have a broad, inclusive discussion on how best to do this. Charles Essie (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is: Iraq War (narrating the events of 2003 til 2011) and Iraqi Civil War (2011–present). Simple, effective, no need to create a thousand articles when just two would be sufficient. God, can you imagine if wikipedia was around during WWII? It would be 30 new articles created per day. That is just my opinion. Coltsfan (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the creation of an umbrella and what it should be called? Charles Essie (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need for a umbrella article. A lot of useless information could be cut. Two articles, no complication, straight to the point, all useful information to help the reader to understand all of it. Wikipedia is not a news agency to offer a blow by blow of the war. Simple, yet informative. Direct, yet complete. It can be done. It would require some work, but what can you do? I think this is the way. I believe divide this in multiple articles is not the way. It complicates what already is a complex situation. Anyway, those are my thoughts, i don't think the majority of the people here will agree. Just look at the 'syrian civil war' thing. A huge article, 1/3 of it could be eliminated, pretty much an article for every single skirmish that happens. Too weird, too long, too unnecessary, doesn't help at all, just things walking in circles. Coltsfan (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I will again point out that the Afghan and other wars have had different phases and we have different articles for each of those phases. The 2011-13 period and the 2014-present period are definitely two of several distinct phases of the Iraq conflict (2003-present). We can not merge the 2011-13 period with 2014-present, because the 2014-present period specifically has been called a war, while the 2011-13 period has been specifically called a low-level insurgency (not a war, or let alone a civil war). So, our sources (on which we base our edits), cite these two periods as distinct from each other. The sources can be found in a previous merger discussion from a year ago. And I will also once again say that I have plans on an article that would cover the overall ISIL conflict that started in January 2014 (which is the start date of the current phase of the Iraq conflict), and if we would merge 2011-13 with 2014-present it would complicate matters. EkoGraf (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
PS I could possibly also support GreyShark's second proposal where these two articles/phases would remain distinct/separate, but we create an umbrella article for an Iraq conflict (2011-present) for them two. EkoGraf (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, how about we do hybrid of the above proposals as a compromise;
Iraqi conflict (2003–present)
Charles Essie (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be fine with that. EkoGraf (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I still find this overly exaggerated. seriously, what is this fixation with multiple articles when only two would suffice? don't tell me it's because of "multiple sources" because sources differ. some say it's all the same, some say otherwise. I still defend the simple option. Simple and objective, yet complete and full of pertinent information. Coltsfan (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
We write per the sources, and the sources call 2014-present a distinct period in the conflict. They concretely refer to 2011-13 as an insurgency, while they call 2014-present as a full-fledged war. And even when we ourselves look at it, the 2011-13 period did not fit any criteria of a war, but a low-level insurgency. EkoGraf (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Sources goes both ways here. "Did not fit any criteria of a war". hm A war it's up to 1,000 dead a year? If it's 999, it's like "holy sh*t, one more death and it's war". Doesn't make sense. Over 15,000 civilians alone died between 2011 and 2013, i wouldn't called that "low level insurgency". Coltsfan (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Measuring the definition of a war based on yearly death tolls is not the proper way to go I think. And besides, if not backed up by sources it would be OR. But the point here is, the 2011-13 period was defined by an insurgency (as per sources) which held no ground whatsoever anywhere in Iraq and was focused on guerrilla warfare. While 2014-present is defined by a real frontline war with clearly defined battle lines. In any case, I agree with Greyshark09 and Charles Essie. We create a Iraqi Civil War (2011–present) article, with two sub-articles that deal with the two distinct phases of the conflict. PS I could also recommend the overall article be named Iraq conflict (2011–present), but I'm fine ether way. EkoGraf (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The two conflicts are indeed seperate. You could, however, consider them different phases of an larger series of conflicts, similar to the way the War in Afghanistan is consider a phase of the Afghan Civil War. If that were to be the case, then the Iraq War would be the first phase of fighting, followed by the Iraqi Insurgency which lingered after the end of that war, which then in turn led to the ongoing Iraqi Civil War after the rise of ISIL and the beginning of their offensive. Each distinct phase of fighting is very different from the others. The Iraq War started with a foreign invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime and continued through the initial insurgency until the departure of foreign troops in 2011. Afterwards, most of the major fighting endind with the exception of a lingering insurgency, which made up the second phase of fighting. This second conflict consisted of the Iraqi government fighting those insurgent groups which did not disband after the end of the Iraq War. The insurgency was strictly a guerrilla campaign, with no insurgent group holding any territory in Iraq. This phase continued to the end of 2013. The rise of ISIS led to the current conflict, which began with the major offensives in 2014 which captured much of Iraq. The fighting from 2014 onwards is clearly a different kind of conflict, with clear battle lines. This conflict also has larger foreign involvement than the insurgency, with ISIL's ranks bolstered by foreign fighters, and the return of foreign troops to Iraq, albeit in a more limited supporting role. Each phase of the fighting has a distinct beginning and ending, and as such should be covered in seperate articles, just as the phases of the Afghan Civil War and the fighting in Somalia are covered. Anasaitis (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose
Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) 43,833 bytes
Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) 37,906 bytes
— Менделеевец99 (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Anasaitis and Менделеевец99: What do you think of the above proposals? Charles Essie (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I support any merge as that's better than the current situation. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose How many times is this going to be brought up? This is a distinct phase within a much larger struggle. We did the exact same thing for the Afghan Civil War and several others. As for the mention of World War II in the above comment, I fail to see the connection. 2601:4C4:4000:D492:C875:EC5D:3283:798A (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, there's clearly no consensus to merge. So, @Anasaitis, Bertdrunk, Coltsfan, EkoGraf, Greyshark09, and Менделеевец99: Merge discussion aside, do you agree that there should be an umbrella article? Charles Essie (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, like the one there's for Afghanistan and Somalia. And with three separate periods: 2003-10 (Iraq war; US involvement), 2011-13 (Iraqi insurgency; Low-level guerrilla conflict), 2014-present (Civil war; part of the ISIL conflict). EkoGraf (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The ping didn't work btw. Whoever it was, would you mind defining "umbrella article"? Whatever it is, although I can't see the future it's highly probable it will keep expanding, leaving what there's now as subdivision of a larger conflict, a situation I must agree as the current division is arbitrarily and don't make sense anyway. Will it start at 2003 btw? Bertdrunk (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems fine. Bertdrunk (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose This is a different period in Iraq's history from the insurgency. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about the umbrella article proposal? Charles Essie (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Charles Essie: I'd be fine with that as long as information is not deleted. To me, the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) symbolizes the shift from insurgency to civil war after territory was lost. I just saw the draft posted above and I think that's cool. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think any information would be deleted. We're talking about creating a new article. Charles Essie (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. However, I would support the creation of an umbrella article similar to the ones on Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the idea of an umbrella article as mentioned above. The various phases of conflict are related in much the same way as the various phases of the fighting in Afghanistan. Since an umbrella article was used for the fighting in Afghanistan, it should be useful here. Anasaitis (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like we're all in agreement about the creation of an umbrella article. So let's forget about my merge proposal (at least for now) and start working on completing EkoGraf's draft. Charles Essie (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Iraqi Civil War infobox protected for one week

No sweeping changes without (any) talk page effort, please(!). El_C 18:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2017

The following is a closed 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: speedily moved DrStrauss talk 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi-Islamist War → Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) – Essentially requesting that the last undiscussed move to be reverted. Current title is misleading since Iraq is not at war with "Islamists", but rather a generalized conflict, of which ISIS is one of the main belligerents. Tachfin (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Strong support. This move was undiscussed and seems to be based on the personal opinion of the person who moved it. Previously in September 2015 a consensus was established for the article to be titled Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). At the very least it should be something like Iraq War (2014–present) if others disagree with Civil, but Islamist definitely not especially since there are no sources calling it as such. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging some of the other editors involved on the Iraq war articles so they could express their opinions. @Charles Essie:@StuRat:@Applodion: EkoGraf (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Support per EkoGraf. Personally, I'd be okay with either Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) or Iraq War (2014–present). By the way, I still think we need an umbrella article for the 2003–present war in Iraq (here's a draft, courtesy of EkoGraf). Charles Essie (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Support per EkoGraf. Especially because many of the PMU groups which fight for the government are Shia Islamists, battling Sunni Islamists. Applodion (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Support per above. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose since Iraq is at war with people from outside the country. 11:48, 19 August (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.196.8 (talk)
Would you support Iraq War (2014–present)? Charles Essie (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The Iraqi government is at war with people both outside and INSIDE the country. A large number of ISIL forces are also made up of local Iraqis, and not just foreigners. And it doesn't really matter, the Syrian civil war is called a civil war regardless if there are also foreigners involved (which there are, a lot). Also, like @Apploadion: stated, the title is in addition factually incorrect since the pro-government PMU is a Shiite Islamist paramilitary force, so the Iraqi government is not at war with Islamists in general. As for @Charles Essie:'s proposal, again, I wouldn't mind just Iraq War (2014–present). EkoGraf (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Support, the undiscussed move should not even have occurred. —Nightstallion 08:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Strong support. The Kurds and Turkmen mean it is a civil war. It is referred to as the Iraqi "civil war" in all media, and this has been the consensus since the war started. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Support, as per the arguments above. Redditor555 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2017 (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.

Kirkuk Crisis

The new conflict between the Kurds and the Iraqi government is hardly a part of the Iraqi civil war. Time will show whether it'll classify as a border war or even a war of independence, but it is certainly a new conflict that needs a separate article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Umbrella article created

After numerous discussions and consensus to create one, an umbrella article for the entire Iraq conflict (2003–present) has finally been created. However, it needs a great deal of work and I am seeking help in expanding it. Charles Essie (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Will take a look.GreyShark (dibra) 09:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Map is outdated

PLEASE CHANGE THIS MAP OF IRAQ. THE PROVINCES OF SALADIN AN NINEVEH ARE COMPLETELY LIBERATED BY THE IRAQUI ARMY, ONLY THE PROVINCE OF ANBAR REMAINS IN PART IN HANDS OF DAESH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.85.3.35 (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I will update all maps for the Levant conflicts and make color corrections, in December 2017. I am currently too busy to effect such large-scale changes across so many maps. However, the map editors seem to have updated the territorial control aspects of the Iraq map correctly, for the most part. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE UP DATE THE MAP OF THE CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ. DAESH ONLY CONTROLS RAWA IN AL ANBAR GOVERNORATE IN IRAQ. ALL OF NINEVEH PROVINCE IS LIBERATED BY IRAQI FORCES.

Merge 2

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merger. 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 merge proposal was: Keep and Rename to 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It was proposed by user:Dbachmann to merge Third Iraqi–Kurdish War into Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). Please vote.GreyShark (dibra) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think the most important thing is that I've yet seen any non-Wikipedian source naming the Kirkuk crisis as "Third" Kurdish-Iraqi War. I would be happy to see that.GreyShark (dibra) 21:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The only reference i could find to third Iraqi-Kurdish war was in A Guide to Intra-State Wars. ISBN 978-0-8728-9775-5. – but it has three wars divided already into First (1961–63), Second (1965–66), and Third (1968–70) Australian Matt (talk)
Except that ISIL has joined the Kirkuk crisis tonight [3].GreyShark (dibra) 08:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
So ISIS is now in control of former Kurd held territory? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment First of there is no sourse who said about the conflict as a war. Second of there is indeed a kinda "declaration of war" between the both parties, however i count this conflict more in the way of the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict than the Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). Because the rebel group PKK joined the side of Iraqi Kurdistan, there is also not one of the Iraqi pro-Ba'ath loyalists insurgents groups who joined the conflict. The incident where ISIS had attacked 2 towns in Kirkuk province is just an incident and that made the conflict also part of the Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) thanks to ISIS. But because PKK joined the conflict, it is possible that Turkey would join this conflict too so if Turkey join the conflict than is the conflict also part of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) CPA-5 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, this is separate from the conflict with IS but both can be considered part of the banner "Iraqi Civil War", just as conflict between Syrian and Kurdish groups is considered part of the Syrian Civil War. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - This is a distinct conflict from the Iraqi Civil War which is against ISIS and mixing it will create confusion among the readers. So there must be no merging or renaming it to Iraqi Kurdish conflict or anything like that because of its consistency with First Iraqi–Kurdish War and Second Iraqi–Kurdish War. User:IbrahimWeed (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2017 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.120.136 (talk)
  • Oppose Those are two separate wars. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2017

(UTC)

Actually, no, both articles are relatively short. The only thing that's long is this talk page, and that doesn't count as part of the overall article length. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"Kirkuk Crisis" would be a terrible title, given the fact the the conflict has already spread across all of the disputed areas formerly held by the Peshmerga, including Sinjar, the Nineveh Plains, and Kanaqin. It is almost (if not already) the equivalent of another civil war, only it is another part of the already-ongoing Second Iraqi Civil War. It was always a part of the larger conflict, the only difference is that the Iraqi Gov. and the Kurdistan Regional Government focused on ISIL rather than fight each other, until now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, you should note that "Kirkuk Crisis" refers to the Battle of Kirkuk (2017), not to this larger conflict in general. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
In any event, if the article in question is kept, it should be moved back to Third Iraqi–Kurdish War, or to 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict, because the current title is in direct violation of WP:MOS. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the current consensus appears to be a weak keep, with the renaming of the article (possibly to 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict), and inclusion of that article's topic in the Iraqi Civil War article, as part of the overall larger conflict. Some additional user input would be appreciated here, if indeed this is the consensus. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed merge. 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.

Requested move 8 November 2017

The following is a closed 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: moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil War (2014–17) → Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) – This war isn't over yet. Charles Essie (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither is 2017. Can we wait a couple of months? —  AjaxSmack  02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Syria has declared victory over IS, but Iraq has not, and the article I linked says "all the forces fighting Islamic State in Syria and Iraq expect a new phase of guerrilla warfare." We should move the article back until reliable sources say the war is over. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Islamic State still holds territory in Iraq, agreements with the Kurds have not been finalised. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Honestly, the whole argument can be summed up wholly as: don't add an end date for something that doesn't actually have an end date. יבריב (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This civil war hasn't even ended yet. Iraq still hasn't fully cleared out ISIL from its borders, and the conflict with the Kurds still needs to be resolved for this war to be declared "over." At the earliest, this civil war probably won't end until next year, and that's assuming that things come together really fast. By the way, the Syrian Government has not beaten ISIL. ISIL still holds a large amount of territory in Syria's Deir ez-Zor Province, and they even recaptured Al-Bukamal from the Syrian Government a couple of days ago. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, the war is still ongoing and its termination can only be determined retroactively.GreyShark (dibra) 06:43, 14 November 2017 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Kurdish-Iraqi conflict

I don't think the Kurdish-Iraqi conflict should be considered part of the same war as the war between the Iraqi central government and ISIS. This conflict closer resembles an interstate conflict, and by far predates the current conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the fight agains ISIS is not the only facet of this conflict. There is other (mostly sunni) groups battling the iraqi government. See the discussion above. Coltsfan (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Iraqi Kurdistan has been an independent entity in all but name since the 1990's, hence the conflict cannot be described as a "civil war". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree Kurdish-Iraqi conflict shouldn't be part of Iraqi Civil War.Alhanuty (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. The Kurdish-Iraqi conflict is not really a 'civil war'. It's a different entity.--Wq639 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing status

I'm confused. Is the Iraqi Civil War over? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC))

The conflict with ISIL is not over, but the government has control over the entire territory they had lost, so that it is no longer in a state of war. Isolated incidents will no doubt continue. The Kurdish situation, on the other hand, remains unresolved. Inatan (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The war (in the conventional sense of the term) against ISIL is over. But an ISIL insurgency is now underway. Also, the Iraqi–Kurdish conflict remains unresolved as it has now become for the last few months a frozen conflict so to say. So basically, no, the civil war is not over. EkoGraf (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Things to consider:

  1. The iraqi government has claimed that the war against ISIS is over (highly debatable). Question: is this article only about the war on ISIS or is it about the civil strife in Iraq as a whole? If it's the latter, this war is nowhere near over.
  2. If this article is really only about the war against ISIS, then is the war really over? The information is debatable at best and not back by multiple independent sources, other than the government. And there is reports of fighting still raging.

Just a couple of things for people to consider before deciding to maintain the current title (which i don't agree, to me this is an ongoing conflict). Coltsfan (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. ISIS still has numerous pockets, and the situation between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq is almost comparable to that of the War in Donbass. The consensus is that the conflict is still ongoing, so I will request move-protection. Inatan (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Iraqi-Kurdish conflict ended with the resignation of Kurdish President. The consensus that the conflict is still ongoing was made in November. The war is about ISIL, the other anti-government groups were a focus in 2014 but not very much after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.225.2.100 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's start with a different question. Is the war against ISIL in Iraq, and Iraq only, over? Is the conflict with ISIL in that country over? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC))
The war ends when all major combat ends. That doesn't mean ALL combat have to end, only major ones, per say. But the thing is: not only there is still ISIS militants fighting in Iraq, but you have other sunni militias fighting the government as well, and you also have the problem with the kurds going on. A lot is going on, actually, a lot of uncertainties have to be addressed before we can say anything conclusive, i think. Coltsfan (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a separate article for the general conflict against ISIL in the whole world. EkoGraf (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It is important to note that just because someone says the war is over, it doesn't mean that the war actually is. It's highly debatable whether the war with ISIS is over. Even if it was, ISIS is not the only one fighting the Iraqi government. Some could argue the war is still ongoing with the recent Kurdish conflict as well. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In my view the Iraqi central government-Kurdistan conflict has been resolved, ISIS/ISIL has been declared defeated by the Iraqi PM, they no doubt do still have small pockets under their control, however to use an analogy England still controlled a stronghold in France until 1558, yet it is generally accepted that the Hundred Years War ended in 1453. So ISIS still having some small presence in Iraq and being able to run an insurgency does not mean that this is ongoing. If ISIS is not able to show some kind of meaningful presence in Iraq in the near future (which they are unlikely to be able to do), then Abadi will have been shown to be correct that the war against ISIS. So yes, I am in favour of recognising this war as over, now or in the near future if it is felt some more time is needed. 131.227.148.105 (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but with ISIS defeated, will other suni anti-government groups stop fighting too? Plus, there is no independent confirmation that ISIS is defetead to a point that they are no longer an effective fighting force. Coltsfan (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that the civil war is over,anything new should be put in a new article,in an insurgency article.Alhanuty (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alhanuty. Page should be moved to Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017). Swazzo (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So, @AlAboud83: and @Swazzo:, the "civil war" is actually just a "ISIS-Iraqi government War"? If so, the tittle of the article is a bit misleading. And what about all the other groups (sunni or shia), that are also against Bagdad and to which we have no confirmation that they stopped fighting, should not be considered anymore? Coltsfan (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Coltsfan. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree that the civil war is over, and any ISIS insurgency in the future should simply be put in a separate article if it may happen.--Wq639 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

cite 55...

... is a dead link --2A02:C7F:2C12:5E00:EDB8:69CF:4A1:677F (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2017

The following is a closed 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. Consensus is clearly against moving at this time. The war will probably not end this year, and if it turns out to end in 2018 or 2019, then we can re-discuss about moving to Iraqi Civil War (2014–2018) or Iraqi Civil War (2014–2019). (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) → Iraqi Civil War (2014-2017) – The government has officially declared victory. Wq639 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I think any ISIS insurgency that may happen in the future would have to be in a separate article, as I believe this 'civil war' is now over. The Iraqi-Kurdish conflict is separate and not part of this 'civil war' (plus that is not really a 'civil war' anyway - it's just a few clashes that sometimes may happen, and also the Kurds have their autonomous region anyway.).--Wq639 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "The government has officially declared victory". A victory over ISIS, right? Like mentioned before, what about the other groups? What about the Baathists? Other sunnis? the shia? al-Qaeda? ISIS is defeated, maybe (debatable), did all these groups stop fighting as well? So far nobody gave a satisfactory answer to that. Coltsfan (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Since 2014, ISIS have been the dominant group in this civil war. Baathists, Sunni and any other group only play a minor role now, a small insurgency, if anything. It's not 'civil war' even if these groups continue fighting, but more of an 'insurgency'. The Iraqi government now has almost total control outside the Kurdistan autonomous region, so these other groups and their little fights can't count as a proper civil war anymore. --Wq639 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep title the same. While the government has officially said that the ISIS insurgency is over, they still do not completely have control over their country. There are belligerents other than ISIS in this conflict including the Kurdistan region. Until the entirety of the conflict is resolved, the title should stay the same. TheSubmarine (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as TheSubmarine. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support.There have been several wars throughout history that have ended in declared victories which are recognised on Wikipedia; the Spanish Civil War and Second Congo War are just two examples. In both of those conflicts, victory was established through proclamation or treaty despite the fact that minor insurgency fighting continued for years after the peace. The situation in Iraq appears similar to the Spanish Civil War in particular; the major belligerent of this particular conflict (ISIL) has been largely defeated and peace proclaimed, though several minor anti-government forces continued to fight in what amounts to an insurgency, not a civil war on the scale that ISIL had managed to achieve. The situation in Iraq has evolved into a different type of conflict that is reflected in al-Abadi's victory declaration. 125.63.26.55 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, it's too soon. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Needs more reliable sources supporting the end, rather than just the government's declaration.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too soon to change the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As others said above, it is too soon to say that this war is truly over. In regard to the other groups: For example Ansar al-Islam, an old Kurdish militant faction which has been largely defunct/underground since 2014, appears to have become active again in Iraq. See this article Applodion (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait a few months per the toosoon comments above. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
A crystal ball
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

State that the Iraqi civil war is over since ISIL has been declared defeated in Iraq, giving victory to Iraqi-Coalition forces. 137.122.64.24 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That proposal was basically made here a month ago, when the victory claim was first made (and reported in our article). The proposal was rejected per WP:SNOW (and also per WP:CRYSTAL). It would make even less sense this month, when we are reporting IS bombings and ongoing Iraqi army operations against IS, all of it supported by reliable sources. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Closing this edit request as Not done: per above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Image

How about someone creating a new main pic for this article? Like a gif, showing the major territoires exchanges in the map during the years. i'd do it myself, if i knew how. lol What you guys think? Would that be a good thing for the article? Coltsfan (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a gif, but the map should be replaced. There is no longer an active war between the two remaining groups which hold territory that can be marked on a map. Maps as main images are only useful if they indicate the changing territorial possessions and/or the locations of conflict. --LukeSurl t c 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for New Article

May I suggest that the conflict in Iraq from 9 December 2017 onwards be categorised in a separate article titled Iraqi Insurgency 2017-Ongoing. This current article relates to the phase in the conflict of the rise of ISIL and of a conventional warfare nature. The conflict now has shifted into a insurgent basis, therefore it is appropriate to categorise it differently. The Iraqi Civil War ended on 9 December 2017 and should be considered to have begun on 28 December 2013 (when the Anbar Offensive first began), between these dates the conflict was completely different, involving conventional warfare and combat between two entities that had territorial control, now ISIS has been eliminated territorially it should be considered differently as such.109.246.229.85 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This was kinda discussed already (here and here). Coltsfan (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This may have to be taken into consideration now. I myself was also initially opposed to this kind of proposal in the previous discussions since it was still unclear whether the war had ended at the time. However, at this point, it has become clear that there is no longer a war between the Iraqi government and ISIL. Right now, ISIL has reverted back to a low-level insurgency in Iraq just like in the previous phase of the long-running Iraq conflict. Thus I support user 109.246... proposal that this article should be closed and a new article should opened for the current ISIL insurgency. EkoGraf (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing the infobox (esp. on the Kurdish section)

Having only Barzani in the "Commanders and leaders" section of the Kurds is severely lacking. I advise to put other very important Kurdish figures there too {e.g. Karayilan and Cemil Bayik for PKK, Sipan Hemo for Rojava, Mustafa Sayid Qadir, the Minister for Peshmerga Affairs, notable Iraqi Kurdish field commanders, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planettolex (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for New Article (continued)

I support the proposal of creating a separate insurgency article, as mentioned in: /Archive 1#Proposal for New Article. It is half a year since the government's victory declaration against ISIL and it is clear by now that the country is experiencing a lower-level insurgency now rather than a civil war. --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gateshead001: I will repeat what I stated in the previous discussion (March-April 2018). I myself was initially opposed to this kind of proposal in the previous discussions (December 2017) since it was still unclear whether the war had ended at the time. However, at this point, it has become clear that there is no longer a war between the Iraqi government and ISIL. Right now, ISIL has reverted back to a low-level insurgency in Iraq just like in the previous phase of the long-running Iraq conflict. Thus I support the proposal that this article should be closed and a new article should be opened for the current ISIL insurgency. EkoGraf (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2018

The following is a closed 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: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) → Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017) – It has been over half a year since the Iraqi government has declared victory. Since then, ISIL has failed to take any territory in Iraq or even disrupt the elections. It is clear that the civil war is over. Koopinator (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2018 (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.

Could someone please update the map?

Hi, I think the map could be needed to be updated because of the fact that the Battle of Mosul has ended and it is also a month since it has been updated. --Skim

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skim127 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, what should it be updated to? I renamed Siria/Irak to Syria/Iraq but haven't updated it yet. I wanted to ask if it was ok to do so. I understand that it's in French but the page is in English. Maybe the current version can go on the French page instead? Guywithacoolname (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Iraq_(2013–2017)/Archive_1&oldid=1145829060"