Wikipedia

Talk:Iraqi civil war (2006–2008)/Archive 3

< Talk:Iraqi civil war (2006–2008)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Natg 19 in topic Requested move 14 September 2021
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Delete Entire Article, Outdated; Cannot Update w/out Original Research

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Delete Entire Article, Outdated, Civil War In Iraq

I've nominated this thread for deletion on the following grounds:

(1) The article is outdated:

a) It was written in August 2005 to refer to then ongoing events, but it has not been updated since September 2007.

b) Among its other failings, the article makes reference to the "escalation" period of the civil war. It indicates that the civil war has been escalating since Feb. 2006. It makes no reference to the decline in violence since then.

c) The article makes reference to "current combatants" , current levels of violence, displays charts which only only give numbers through 2005, etc.

etc.

(2) While this would normally only mean that the article should be updated, there are reasons to think that any update now would enmesh editors in original research, and, hence, violate wiki policies. For example, is the escalation period of the war still ongoing? Casualties have been falling since Sept. 2007. And if it's not ongoing, then when did it end. Or is there still even a civil war going on? Levels of violence now are lower than they were in Feb 2006 (when the article claims that the war began). If the war has ended, though, when did it end? In order for us to update the article, we would need *current* outside sources which still make reference to an ongoing civil war (or, alternatively, state an end-date for the civil war). I don't think that we can find either in sufficient quantity to make an update based out onside sources.

And if we try to update the article without those outside sources, then we're espousing our own opinions and engaging in original research.

So I'm willing to forgo deletion if someone can find enough outside sources to do a credible job of updating the article. But I don't see that happening. And it's just irresponsible to leave the article up as it is.

Magickyleo101 (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of nominating the article for deletion, could you not have edited the article and updated it? haz (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I wrote that whole second paragraph just to explain why I think it'll be hard to update... Magickyleo101 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with your reasoning, and therefore with the proposed deletion, but I've created an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sectarian fighting in Iraq. haz (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Nominating the article for deletion without any new reasoning seems to ignore the two previous AfD discussions at the top of the page.. --Nosfartu (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that if you're saying this you either failed to read the old AfD discussions or you failed to read the new arguments behind the current AfD discussion. Magickyleo101 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd assume you must be unfamiliar with the deletion process, as an article typically doesn't get deleted because a few editors feel it hasn't been updated in awhile. Any good reasoning was already covered in the previous AfD's. As you appear to be a new editor with just edits on the AfD and this page though, welcome. --Nosfartu (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I support this proposition. By all accounts there is no civil war in Iraq today, and to the extent that there ever was one it could not properly be termed a "civil war."72.91.250.188 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

It shouldn't be called "civil war". This term is highly controversial and is not official. "Sectarian violence" is not controversial and quite official. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see above.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And what about the others?

Btw, the whole "Polling Data" section: who the heck cares what the Americans think? Since when avarage Americans (who are infamous of their world-affair ignorance) are exeperts on Iraq? Why not ask, um, let me think, the Iraqis?

Let's see further, "Neighboring countries":

  • "Foreign Minister of Kuwait: Meeting in Kuwait to 'prevent Iraq from sliding into civil war'" - no civil war (theoretical)
  • "Arab League Chief Says Iraq Is On Brink Of Civil War" - the same.
  • "Syrian President asks US to take last chance to avert Iraq Civil War" - ditto.

You guys can't even get your sources right. Please tell me you just googled for "civil war" and posted everything you came upon.

Now, shall I?

The three above (Arab League, Syria, Kwait), plus, for example:

  • President of Iraq and the British government in 2006, as well as the largest (and ruling) Iraqi party, SCIRI: [1]
  • President of USA in 2006: [2]
  • The Pentagon report in 2006: [3]
  • Chatham House report in 2007: [4] (not "a civil war" of Sunnis and Shiites, but many regional conflicts and insurgencies" - see Iraqi Insurgency)
  • US commander in Iraq in 2006: [5]
  • US overall commander in 2006: [6]
  • Iraqi Prime Minister in 2007: [7] ("civil war avoided" not "ended" as violence dropped)
  • And so on and on and on (and on). Guess these guys don't matter.

So, not highly controversial term? Rly? And what's this?

Why should we use controversial terms IN THE TITLES when there non-controversial ones avaible?

Let me cite Open Democracy in 2006: [8]

The use of the term "civil war" in relation to Iraq inevitably raises comparisons with the anarchy witnessed in recent years in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Liberia and Rwanda. In almost all these places, the common denominator has been a battle for territory between rival factions led by publicly identifiable figures with clearly stated, albeit occasionally dubious, aims.

This is certainly not the case in Iraq. There are no pitched battles for territory and no known figureheads rallying the masses to a well-defined cause. (...) What is happening is a concerted effort by a group or groups of highly-organised insurgents to cause maximum death and destruction. Their sole aim seems to be to strike fear into the hearts of all Iraqis and totally derail the rebuilding process, both political and physical, in this war-shattered country.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Government sources have a vested interest in downplaying the levels of violence. If you disgaree with the American public or think they are ignorant then that is fine, but there were still a plethora of sources above which concluded that the country was in a civil war. If you wish to note the other side, there is a "use of the civil war" section..--208.111.26.71 (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It would also be useful if you could provide a list of the items which are factually disputed.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can I see the opinion poll by Iraqis? Many of "a plethora of sources" said Iraq was "on brink of" or "heading towards" civil war (as I showed when I only checked only some of the titles someone wrote above), which actually meant there was NO civil war (it's theoretical and in future). Governments are not "downplaying violence" - they don't declare (an another) war. One war is enough. (Two if you count "War on Terrorism".)

I repeat again: why is Wikipedia taking sides in this heated debate and deciding on the highly controversial title? Why not an impartial title? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

List of items disputed:

  • Title
  • Completely idiotic infobox (as I already wrote more than once: Shia terrorists have no clear figureheads, 1920RBs hate AQI and aren't terrorists, Badr are the government, and so on and on and on)
  • I didn't read the article yet, but I except it to be stupid too and more about Iraqi insurgency than terrorism in Iraq.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your use of profanity is troubling, but stating specific problems is a good first step. Things will be much more productive if you use civility in your posts.
  • Renaming the article was previously discussed here. If you believe you have a significant new reason to rename the article, you should follow the process outlined here.
  • Rather than deleting something you disagree with, make proposals and counter-proposals here on the talk page until a consensus can be reached.
  • Forming preconceived notions about an article or editors is seeking a conflict. Try to make constructive and sourced edits to the page to improve it.
I will discuss the title further if you wish, but I think it may be more advisable to seek the input of other editors through the process outlined above.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Let us remember these points from the talk header:

  1. Be polite
  2. Assume good faith
  3. Neutral point of view Dogru144 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:IAILogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename this Article, please (Civil Conflict in Iraq, 2003-2007)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nobody has posted anything new here in the last year. Two years ago, I proposed changing the name of this article to "Proxy conflicts in Iraq". I now propose changing the title to "Civil conflict in Iraq, 2003-2007" All of the information in this article is from 2007 or earlier, nearly two years ago. In reality, the civil conflict in Iraq is ongoing. The only thing that has changed is that Obama was elected president, and the people with an agenda who so heavily argued their points on this page are satisfied, and have lost interest. I also made some poignant points 2 years ago, and somebody felt sufficiently threatened to go through and delete my comments. Please stop doing this.97.125.84.91 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of infoxbox is wrong (completely)

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

The groups in one section may be in fact fighting each other (like the Badr Organization and the Mahdi Army or the 1920RBrigades and the AQI), while, for example, Badr just don't fight the government. Get rid of this and just rewrite (and update) the article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to capture the complexity of the fighting in 3 columns indeed would not appear to be reasonably possible. Any such arrangement would have to be a simplification, or limited to a few parties.--208.111.27.6 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Gutting by anonymous IP address is unacceptable. Info boxes do not purport to give the complexity of a situation. World War I --look at that info box-- was complex, we have an info box for it. Info boxes are useful for overviews. But no intelligent person would rely on infobytes for analysis. The box is getting restored. Dogru144 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The point of the tag was abou the infobox, so only one of them belongs.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"But no intelligent person would rely on infobytes for analysis." You overrate Wikipedia readers (who aren't only the "intelligent persons", by the way). The info in the box is just completely wrong (AQI is a mortal enemy of some other Sunnis in their section and isn't anything really different than ISI - which is their own umbrella organization, the Sunni Awakenings aren't on the side of Shia government - but of their wortwhile American allies/paymasters and the government want them to go away - and are drawn from the "former" Sunni insurgents, the Badr guys never fight government forces - they actually control much of the government forces and fight the Mahdi gangstas, there are no Kurds and Turkmen mentioned whatsoever, nothing about the Sunnis-on-Yazidis too, and so on). I have no idea why the WWI comparison, as WWI had just two general sides (with Italy switching sides as always) and the Russian Revolution sideshow. And if you'd just draw a line of just the Coalition|the Insurgents, then what would be difference with the Iraqi insurgency box? Oh wait, insurgency has no box. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The way to address concerns with the box is to provide sources providing facts to contest content in the infobox, not to delete it entirely. The point with mentioning WWI is to cite a conflict that was (a) complex as the current one, (b) has an infobox. Why specially single out this article for stripping out the infobox? Dogru144 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
WWI wasn't complex at all (Central Powers vs The Entente coalitions - and this is in the box, which is correct). I "singled out" this one, because this none was wrong. What would be less wrong, would be the (Iraqi-International) Coalition (including pro-government militias) vs (all kinds of) Insurgents - but this would better fit the Insurgency article (which has none). The so-called (and non-existing, too) "civil war" is NOT Sunni militias vs Shia militias vs Gvt/US, but rather all-kinds-of-terrorists-on-civilians "warfare" (if by warfare one would call a retarded woman detonating herself in a marketplace crowd or some thugs kidnapping people near a mosque and later dumping their mutilated bodies on a roadside). This is not war, just like Catholics and Protestants blowing up each-others' pubs in N.Ireland was not a war. There is also not enough in this article to separate the sectarian conflict from the Iraqi insurgency. Here the correct box (and article) would be: Sunni and Shia terrorists/Iraqi civilians (including Christians and Yazidi)/pro-government forces (which also are infiltrated by terrorists, but see the column one). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well some of these groups do fight each other, but this is about Sunni Vs. Shi'a, so in that way these groups are put in the right place. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If it is (it isn't), why is the Shia-dominated government is not on the side of the Shia militias in your silly disinfomationbox? Are the Christians and Yazidis (murdered by terrorists constantly, including the deadliest bombing in the history of Iraq) supposedly the Sunni or the Shia (according to you)? Time for you to understand this is sectarian terrorists vs civilians. The Sunni/Shia (and Shia-Shia) political struggle for the power in Iraq after the 2003 invasion is called the Iraqi insurgency (including the Sunni insurgency and the Mahdi Army troubles, infighting between the Sunni insurgent groups and more). There is also a low-scale ethnic Kurdish-Arab/Turkmen conflict in the northern Iraq, which is not for power but for disputed territory. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You've left out a few conflicts and failed to note that sides are constantly changing (such as with a rise and fall in funding for Sons of Iraq); also, a "sectarian terrorists vs civilians" infobox would seem U.S.-centric in that many Iraqi civilians complain of U.S. soldiers, U.S. funded contractors, or U.S. funded Iraqis harming or killing them as well. A perfect infobox thus seems delusional, but that is what the discussion page would be for.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Americans rather don't kill random Iraqis in an acts of religious violence (things like this <- it's not "war", it's terrorism)... do they? If I'd call anything in Iraq "civil war", it would be the insurgency after the occupation officially ended (but it's still called "Iraqi insurgency", isn't it?). What these terrorists want when they attack? "Leave our neighbourhood", "leave our country", "convert", or often simply "die". Also as a provocation or an act of revenge - for example, the Samarra mosque bombings were provocative and provoked waves of revenge attacks by Shia extermists (al-Qaeda then used to pose as defenders of Sunnis against the Shiarevenge attacks they themselves provoked, at the same time terrorizing also Sunnis who were no cooperative). AQI hates all non-Muslims and even moderate Sunnis (not only Iraqi), while the 1920 Brigades hate AQI and just want more political power for their sect - and you want to tell the uniformed reader they're on one side, or that even secular Sunnis are motivated by religious hatred against other Muslims or Iraqi Christians? The Sons of Iraq is a good example, becase they're moderate Sunnis who decided to stop fight the government/coalition and instead protect their neighbourhoods from terrorism (with the assistance by the US forces) - so it's not "Sunni vs Shia civil war". Btw, in the spot the terrorist (unidentified by his own religion) asks the man "are you Sunni or Shia", until the man answers "Iraqi". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask an Iraqi on the street what they think of Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, 'unintended casualties of war', the raping and murder of Iraqi women, or the American military occupation of Iraq. 42% of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S. troops, and many more want the troops out of their country now. The Sons of Iraq are former insurgents/terrorists who are just temporarily on the payroll of the United States government, even Maliki has said this.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is OT, but: "Any"? Even an avarage Kurd? Interesting, but I think any mainstream Kurds would be upset over how any Baathists or suspected insurgents are sodomized by the Americans or the Blackwater guys (who are actually employing Kurds as quite notorious foot fighters). This figure of 42% must be severaly outdated (maybe 2004 or something). Most Shia and almost all Kurds voted US-supported parties and now most of the Sunnis see the US as a source of protection and sponsorship. This leaves aside the more militant supporters of Sadr (who is only on/off about "kill Americans" and I don't think even them would "approve" attacks by their enemies like al-Qaeda), some hardcore Sunni Arabs (not many now) and some really fringe sections of the society like the die-hard Saddam Baathists if they are any of them left. Also, whatever crimes US personnel commited, the Iraqis do worse both historically and on the daily basis. Abu Ghraib was much (much) worse under Saddam and the current gvt prisons are by a rule also worse. Torture by Americans was nothing even remotely close to torture by Saddam or, say, by the shadowy gangs of Driller Killers rampaging in Iraq now. And so on. Maliki is of course afraid that the US-equipped Sunni militias would make trouble after AQI is destroyed and the Americans leave Iraq (like in the case of an actual civil war then). Again, the core of the anti-American sentiment were the Sunni Arabs, who now largely on the side of Americans on the tribal basis. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you consider things were much worse in 2004, as violence levels have actually just returned to where they were when we initially overthrew the government (about 5-6 years of fighting to maintain a stalemate).
The poll which showed 42% approving of Iraqis approving of attacks on U.S. troops is from March 2008 (and is here); to be fair to your argument, the number used to be much higher and it has dropped slightly. 93% of Sunnis used to approve of attacks on U.S. troops, more recently only 62% of Sunnis find attacks on U.S. troops acceptable. So buying Sunni tribal councils has had a temporary impact for the U.S. government, but it still isn't enough and there are pretty big questions about what will happen when no one is there to pay the former insurgents anymore. This is to just focus on Sons of Iraq, and ignore other issues which don't bode very well either.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "things", but the anti-American sentiment. In 2004 Americans were doing the things like besieging the Shiite holy cities and many Iraqis pretended to be upset over the Abu Ghraib abuse (where the things only improved since the Saddam times, when it was also notorious but in the sense that the electroshocks were real and it was surroundered by mass graves of murdered prisoners). But I said it's OT, as being angry on Americans does not make any "civil war" outside America. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing that you would say "Iraqis pretended to be upset over the Abu Ghraib abuse". The conflict is a civil war because it is classified that way by multiple outside sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.26.71 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pretended - because why would they be angry over conditions in the prison improving? A glimpse on conditition in the Old Abu as recently as in the late 1990s: "U.N. Special Rapporteur for Iraq Max van der Stoel reported that in November and December 1997 the government executed more that 1,500 political detainees in Abu Ghraib and Radwaniyah prisons as part of the “Prison Cleansing Campaign” following visits there by Qusay Saddam Hussein, the president’s son."[9] (I don't remember any massacre following a visit by George W. Bush, the son of George Bush?) The 2004-2005 scandal was just a joke when compared to what was going there before the liberation. Many thousands of people were tortured and/or killed there, and some were even hold in total secrecy and official denial. (For example, in the aptly named report "ENDLESS TORMENT", HRW wrote: "For example, when the Washington-based National Academy of Sciences inquired about the fate of Hussein Shahristani, a nuclear chemist arrested in 1979, the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. replied that he had been long ago pardoned and released. In fact, Shahristani (...) remained at Abu Ghraib until escaping in 1991.") Scandalous was not "TORTURE by Americans" but "torture BY Americans", as they were supposed to have very high standards in human rights. And certainly not "torture in Iraq", as it's a normal thing there and really, people were absolutely accustomed to much, much worse (some of the Baathist Abu was also filmed, look for this if you want - things like throwing people from the roof). Now they just had an excuse for being xenophobic.

Also, this conflict is not a civil war because it is not classified that way by multiple outside AND inside sources (like Iraqi government). But it may become a civil war after the US leaves (theoretically). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib is just one high profile example, and the opinion of Iraqis is what would matter in concern with it. Wikipedia requires multiple reliable sources for an assertion, and a large list of external and internal sources may be found above.
Both of these issues are off-topic, as your dispute with the article appears to be over the infobox. If so, usage of the tag on the article implies an active discussion about the issue on the talk page (which I don't think is currently going on).--208.111.26.71 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's no discussion, this mean no one opposed what I'm saying. Right? So okay. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is started by someone stating the problem and offering supporting evidence. You seem to be discussing completely separate issues.--208.111.26.71 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did. See above and below. (Minus the OT talk of course.) You place the mortal enemies on one side (and at the same even make Badr/SCIRI fight itself for some reason). You ignore completely ignore the Kurds and Christians and Kurdmen and Yazidis. You place clear figures as the heads of the sides ("commanders") in the conflict which has no clear heads as it's all shadowy and undeclared and even denied by "sides" - and actually is just a quite unprecented terrorist campaign. This all is simply silly. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haver deverian only 2 columns, since that way you can understand more simpicidad the conflict, these two columns deverian be on the one hand the Shiites and Sunnis on the other hand, since these were roughly two vandos faced. I hope this will change quickly. --[[user:magneto616|]user talk:magneto616]) 1:08, 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 05:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What "civil war"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Who declared it? What were the main battles of this war? Where were the frontlines exactly? When was it concluded by an official ceasefire or peace treaty between the warring sides?

Or was it not a "civil war", after all?

I mean, LOL WIKIPEDIA: sensationalism and original research. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you say where were frontlines during Lebanese civil war? Or maybe who declared that civil war? Or dozens of other civil wars? You have listed battles right under infobox. Please, sort out your ignorancy elsewhere, we are using WP:RS and those called that phase of conflict as civil war. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. One of the frontlines was the famous Green Line between East and West Beirut, where they stood for 15 years firing at each other in a very positional warfare, separated by no-man's land (green, because reclaimed by nature). You had frontlines, battles, sieges, wholesale massacres after this or that settlement was overrun by enemy forces. What a stupid question. --Niemti (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur. This was no "Civil War," at least not by the definitions accepted by mainstream historians. If one wanted to classify this as a Civil War, then that individual should be able to answer the following questions, in unequivocable detail:

Who were the leaders of the warring factions, particularly the insurgents?
What where the territories they controlled?
What were the stated political, social or economic goals of the warring factions?
Could both sides field organized combatants on the field of battle?
Could both sides sustain a protracted armed conflict?
Did both sides have the support of populations within their territories?

The conflict from 2003 through 2008 is best described as an insurgency, and the coalition's attempt to restore order was a counterinsurgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.80.67 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And so the stupid, sensationalist, misleading name still remainds in mid-2013. --Niemti (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitions and update

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unbelievably, because of domestic American political implications, "Civil War" is still debated. I encourage anyone here to read the Wikipedia article on Civil War. Iraq has met all common definitions (1000 killed, 100 from each side, during a year), and beyond by orders of magnitude. Unfortunately, Iraq has met those definitions entirely during July, and again in September. This article implies violence ended in 2008; I suggest renaming this article Iraqi Civil War (2006-2008) and creating a new article for post-occupation, or extending this one to today as violence has been continuous.50.93.124.175 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's hysterical

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's hysterical how little is written on the Ba'ath Party insurgency... They are barely mentioned, they are one of the best organized forces in Iraq, and this article barely mentions them.... I just think that's strange, those crazy maniacs deserve a bigger emphasize in this article . --TIAYN (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of the historical context, particularly the US decreed De-Ba'athification program: "(Sunnis were) Almost completely excluded from the initial state building process as a result of de-Ba'athification.[55] Additionally, because this segment of society suffered the most from de-Ba'athification, they subsequently comprised some of the most committed and deadly insurgent groups.[45][56] The Sunnis did not participate in the elections both due to a boycott and their general exclusion from the process of state-building.[57]". The article gives the impression that the conflict was all about Al-Qaeda. Of course, that is the official US line, as echoed in "reliable sources" (US corporate media), so it becomes "neutral and unbiased" Wikipedia content. Fourtildas (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As the REAL civil war in Iraq is raging now, can we people can FINALLY change the stupid name of this article?

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The article that was about merely the sectarian strife. And you can see a difference between merely terrorism and a civil war, where there are frontlines and sides capture and hold territories and bases. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree, this was not a civil war. It was a series of armed clashes between rival Sunni and Shia insurgents that occured within the backdrop of the Iraq War. Maybe a better name for this article might be Iraqi factional conflict (2006–07), or Iraqi sectarian conflict (2006–07). Charles Essie (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 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 Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–07). DrKay (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Civil war in Iraq (2006–07) → Iraqi factional conflict (2006–07) – or Iraqi sectarian conflict (2006–07) Per above reasons. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 19:51, 5 April 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.

New umbrella article created

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 19:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–08). 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) 11:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate articles

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The conflict wasn’t just sectarian violence between the Shia and Sunnis, it was also a conflict between different groups (even Shia on shia) the sectarian phase of the conflict also ended in 2007, while the “civil war” continued until 2009. We need to make two separate articles “sectarian violence in Iraq (2006-2007)” and “Iraqi civil war (2006-2009)” IbrahimWeed (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The naming

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The conflict between 2006 and 2009 wasn’t just simply sectarian violence between the Shia & Sunnis, it was basically a full scale civil war involving the government and the militias. The sectarian violence phase of the conflict ended in 2007, and continued as a civil conflict/insurgency until 2009. We need a better name for this article IbrahimWeed (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are articles regarding each phase of the Somali civil war, one called the war in somalia, another called Somali civil war (2009-present) etc. We could just do that with this article IbrahimWeed (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As there has been prior discussion of the article title, it should only be moved through the process described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. DrKay (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–2009) → Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–2007) – The conflict from 2006 until 2008 was overall a civil war, but the sectarian violence ended following 2007. We need a separate article for the civil war Ehoah88880 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. --IWI (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I know that’s why I requested to move it rather than doing it myself Ehoah88880 (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Most articles and claim that the sectarian violence lasted from 2006 and 2007, 2008 could make sense since there were several battles within that year but 2009? Name one battle that occurred in 2009 or send me any source that proves the sectarian violence ended in 2009 Ehoah88880 (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 15 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


Iraqi Civil War (2006–2009) → Iraqi Civil War (2006–2008) – By 2007/2008 al qaeda was territorially defeated, and the civil war ended in may 2008 following the Iraqi ceasefire with mahdi army. Following that; there were no territorial changes in the country and the conflict returned to an insurgency. The previous user added the 2009 date to the title without sources or consensus from others. Ridax2020 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The old article has been removed and i have the permission to revert this page back per H:MOVE Ridax2020 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ridax2020: I have reverted your move to this page. The normal procedure for a move request is that you wait for comments from other users on whether the move would be appropriate, then an uninvolved editor will close the discussion and evaluate whether there is a consensus (agreement) that the move is appropriate. If the statement above is true, could you provide links (preferably diffs) that support your statement above? This will help me verify that your move is appropriate. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
https://www.infoplease.com/history/world/iraq-timeline-2006, https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37438.html, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/who-is-responsible-for-iraqs-sectarian-violence/, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Sectarianism-governance-and-Iraqs-future_English.pdf, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/who-is-responsible-for-iraqs-sectarian-violence/

Most sources give the end date in 2008. Where there were 0 territorial changes after 

Ridax2020 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the sources. I support this move per above. Interstellarity (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 September 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Iraqi Civil War (2006–2008) → Iraqi Civil War – Unnecessary date since there has only been one all-out civil war and must be removed according to wp:NCNUM 88.241.12.177 (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraqi_civil_war_(2006–2008)/Archive_3&oldid=1168947011"