Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of acronyms

AED and IED are used without explanation of what they mean or links. This is bad practice 121.98.218.165 (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Martyn

Casualty Tables

I changed the Casualty section a bit, adding two tables with estimates by the IBC and the Iraqi government. I am still looking for two Iraqi estimates from December 2011 and February 2012, but other than that it would be great if someone with more knowledge takes a look at the tables and plays a bit with them. I know they could fit the article much better, but my knowledge in the area is limited, so please if you have any ideas, share them right here. Skycycle (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work sky.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Page being moved

You may have noticed the recent (unauthorized and lacking consensus) move of the page to Iraqi insurgency (2011-present) - just to let everyone know, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to the edits done by User: Charles Essie. This has, of course, been discussed before - and post-US phase makes a lot more sense than just slapping a year on it and calling it quits, since it's what characterises the insurgency nowadays, and the conflict has changed. Regardless, hopefully soon some sort of action will be taken against this account, and it will be done and dealt with. Skycycle (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

I do most of the editing on List of terrorist incidents, 2012 - it would be easier to use that article and the already sourced attacks to fill in the list of attacks by month in this article. If anyone wants to do the first few months, it would be great - if not, I will eventually get down to it, but towards the end of the year.

In addition to this, I removed the estimates for the size of Sunni and Shi'ite groups. This is something that needs to be researched, since the figures on most other wikipedia articles are ones from 2006-2008, when the insurgency was much stronger. Also, a few of the Shi'ite groups have been disbanded or are in a temporary "truce".

Lastly, we would make great use of a few photos, or at least one for the header box. Skycycle (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The large number of attacks perpetrated each day make it impossible to include on the list of terror incidents. Even if you dont approve; can you please refrain from deleting any content that is included (it takes a long time to collect !~81.110.175.156 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• • It does not matter the slightest how long it takes to collect - this is not supposed to be a detailed list of all attacks in Iraq. For the major ones we already have separate articles + a template box in this article - as for everything else, there is Antiwar.com + the Iraq Body Count project. The Timeline part of this article is completely useless as it is, and if nobody touches it soon, I will remodel it when I get a few hours free. For now, I've set up a few work templates to notify users of this. Skycycle (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I went ahead and did it all. Now we only list the most major attacks and developments. Opinions are most welcome. Skycycle (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion WRT the opening paragraph: "Since the U.S. military's withdrawal, the level of violence has risen,.." -- this seems to be contradicted by the table and chart in the section #Iraq_Body_Count . Perhaps replace with something along the lines of "although the level of violence seems to have stabilised since US forces withdrew, the prospect of a civil war has not abated" ? I'm not an expert on the topic so there's undoubtedly room for improving that wording, though, which is why I didn't make the edit. Comments? imipak

• • On the contrary, the numbers in the table clearly show a rise in casualties since December 2011 - not only in the month-by-month comparison, but yearly as well, as evidence by the ~10% rise in total casualties (excluding insurgents) in 2012. In addition, keep in mind that terrorist activity in Iraq has been, since 2003, following a certain trend where attacks increase in size and number during the summer months and then diminish during the winter as insurgents regroup and prepare for their next "summer offensive". I can go on in more detail, if you'd like me to, but I think that's enough for now. However, I do agree that we need a better entry paragraph, I just haven't had the time to properly start taking care of the article in general. Skycycle (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest the creation of a newer, broader article titled Aftermath of the Iraq War. I should include details of all that's happened in Iraq after the end of the occupation, after all there is a page titled Aftermath of the Libyan civil war and the Iraq War's aftermath has been just as important. (P.S. sorry about the unathorized change to the title, it will never happen again). Charles Essie (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly against, for a number of reasons - the war has not finished, and if anything is only escalating. The Libyan conflict was a short and violent spasm of violence, followed by isolated incidents here and there, and can in NO way be compared to the Iraq War. Furthermore, if you want to add background sections for whatever else you think has happened since the US withdrawal, you are welcome to do so in this article, if they meet the WP standards and are properly written and sourced. However, I believe most essential information is already present, and given the fluid situation on the ground recently, the article will probably be expanded during the summer, some of which I've planned to do already and will when I have a few days off. Keep in mind I did report your account last time, so any further drastic edits or changes to this article will result in this happening again, this time with more serious consequences. Skycycle (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support If not that title, then with another. When you say the war has not finished, and if anything is only escalating. The US military action in Iraq was called operation Iraqi freedom and it clearly ended with the US pullout. The article as it is now titled is "Iraqi Insurgency" and while insurgency may be accurate by the definition of the word isn't what's going on more a civil war via individual acts of terrorism?Batvette (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree (with both of you), this is a war, not just a simple insurgency. The question I have is, should this be considered a new war, or a continuation of the Iraq War, I mean, did that war really end with the coalition withdrawal? Maybe it ended for them, but not for Iraq. Charles Essie (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree, but this is really the same civil war since the interim government was formed. Recall that, during the period of U.S. involvement, most of the attacks were between Iraqis. As now, most of the casualties were inflicted by other Iraqis. -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I now feel that Skycycle is right, the Iraq War is not over, it did not end with the coalition withdrawal. Charles Essie (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

useless figures -- "casualty" does not mean death, civilian vs. non-civilian confused, etc.

The figures in this article are almost useless because the word "casualty" is used inconsistently sometimes to mean "death", sometimes in its correct meaning (death or serious injury). I even found the bizarre euphemism "mortal casualty" for "death". Many times the tables that say "Iraq casualties" clearly mean deaths, since they are quoted from the IBC (which usually tracks deaths specifically), but sometimes this is clearly not the case.

Also, in one place there's a table that is described above it as "Following are the monthly IBC Project civilian death totals, from the US pullout in December 2011 onwards" and below it as "The numbers include civilians, as well as members of the Iraqi Army and police forces." Huh??? They either do or do not include non-civilians. Fix this shit!

67.198.70.33 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input! I do agree that casualty is often confused with death, although it includes injuries as well - will re-word it a bit later today. Will also re-write the bottom one, agreed it is a bit vague since the numbers include everything but insurgents, hence not only Iraqi civilians, but police and army forces as well. Still, it strikes me that you took the time to write all of this, when you could have easily re-written them yourselves and spent less effort while doing it. Also, keep your dirty language to yourself, this is a discussion page on an online encyclopedia, not just a random chatroom ;) Skycycle (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Spillover from Syria and vice versa

How many killed are by those groups who've joined the rebels in Syria and how many have been killed by pro-syrian troops? In other words, how much spillover from Syria is there?Ericl (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can you clarify the question a bit more? There are no pro-Syrian troops engaged in Iraq - almost all of the Sunni groups have some degree of presence within Syria though, obviously spearheaded by the Islamic State. Skycycle (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you been

I have been to Iraq particularly Baghdad and let me tell you, not the best vacation. You see people there are very rude and throw cow poop everywhere. They also make people eat paper towels with soap on there. Although it is not a good vacationing site, it is very interesting and historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.120.24 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we call this a CIVIL WAR now?

There are major battles going on and the Jihadis control several citiesEricl (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think will be better create a new article. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can call what is going on in Fallujah and Ramadi a full on civil war, or if they are just two battles raging in Anbar Province. There is no indication that the entire country right now is in a state of civil war, although there is undoubtedly an insurgency. It is less clear if Anbar Province is in a state of civil war, or rebellion right now, or if this conflict can be tied to the spillover from Syria. There is certainly military action beyond an insurgency going on in those two cities at this point and the battles probably deserve their own independent articles. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I Agree. let's spread the article due to its Escalation(talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.147.27 (talk)

the last escalation in Anbar and Baghdad can lead this one to become a real war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.151.190 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an insurgency anymore as militants have captured and held territory including cities in the west of the country. I suggest changing the article's name to Iraqi Civil War as the country's political geography resembles that of Syria's back in summer 2012 when rebels were on the offensive and the UN acknowledged there was in fact a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helliko (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a civil war, this is an international war, spillover from the Syrian Civil War, and with the Iranian invasion, which the Republican Guard helped take back Tikrit, IT could be a WORLD WAR. Like the Sino-Japanese war from 1931-39 was actually part of World War II.Ericl (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Syria in infobox

I hope Freepsbane will follow WP:BRD and discuss in the talk page instead of edit warring. Syria has been launching airstrikes against ISIS forces in Syrian soil for a while. This does not make Syria involved in the war in Iraq. Intelligence sharing (if this is true) will make Syria at most a supporting country (like the US).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As we all know, the one who is removing citations is not I. The burden of proof lays on you and a convincing argument as to why we should blank chunks of the article should have been given in advance before you did so. As mentioned, the Daily Star and other fairly reliable sources are saying that the Maliki and Assad governments are coordinating their efforts against ISIS, sharing intelligence and launching joint airstrikes against ISIS territory. It would take some fairly sound counter sources to advance your premise that even though both governments are working together, sharing intelligence and attacking the Territory of the ISIS, they are completely unaligned. You haven't provided anything of the sort, and therefore are simply blanking sources which say something you dislike. That isn't good editing. Freepsbane (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Star quotes the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is not a neutral and RS. The source just says they're doing airstrikes at the same time. It could be just a coincidence. Your source does NOT say they are working together. No mention of intelligence sharing. Even if they were working together, Syria is still attacking targets in Syria, not Iraq.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But if Daily Star leans towards the opposition, then an article from them concerning joint Syrian-Iraqi efforts against ISIS is all the more believable. The Star's editors would only report on something that could potentially put Assad in better light if it were true. At any rate, your suggestion for a compromise is fully in line with the source. I have no further objections so thank you for taking the time to listen. Freepsbane (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, think of what's going on as World War II, with the USSR on one side (Stalin was like Assad as an evil dictator), and Britain on the other (Maliki is NO Churchill, but that's beside the point) ISIS (Hiter) is fighting a two-front war and from 1941 to 1945 Stalin's air force NEVER bombed Western Germany or did any joint missions with the UN (western alliance). The Assad and Maliki regimes are coordinating with each other at the moment, although each is doing his damnedst on his side of the border. Remember Iraq DID do airstrikes in Syria a few months back.Ericl (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the infobox is more than just the role of Syria, it appears that the government and the Shia militias are not on opposing sides anymore and it seems like the Kurds are on their own side now, I think the entire infobox should be rewritten. Charles Essie (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ermm... Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War, why is Wiki pretending it isn't?

Any ideas? Reaper7 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

i have no idea why there's very small updates about Iraq. its suspicious— Preceding unsigned comment added by ahendra (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.151.190 (talk)

• Concur, given that all the sources say ISIS and it's confederates have launched a full scale offensive against Mosul and gained near total control over the city and province it's now reached the level of a conventional war. The closest analogy I can think of would be the opening stages of the battle of Aleppo. The fall of Nineveh and Fallujah leaves more than 2 million Iraq's population under insurgent control. We should probably discuss a title change. ,Freepsbane (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we'd need sources calling the current situation a civil war. Statements like "spiraling towards civil war" won't do.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is what people are still calling it??????? Reaper7 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well in all fairness I haven't seen "Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal)" much in the news. If we're going with the most common name Iraq War would have to be it. "Iraq War (2011-2014)" would be the most appropriate name by your standards.Freepsbane (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting your numbers from. "Insurgency" is what pretty much what all sources are calling it. Ex: Iraq's insurgency shows staying power --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay folks, now we're "spiraling towards civil war" ourselves. im out of this debate. since when the title was more important than content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ahendra (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.151.190 (talk)

Personally, I think a good title would be "Iraq War (2011–present)", especially considering that this is really a continuation of the same war that's been going since 2003, just like the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) is the continuation of the same war that's been going since 1978. Charles Essie (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was thinking something about "Iraqi Civil War" considering the period after Soviet troops left Afghanistan or "Second Iraqi Civil War" if one counts the Shia-Sunni civil war. Helliko (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a civil war, you are correct. The news channels however are very very careful not to use that word for political reasons. It is a shame that Wiki is simply a puppet therefore. Would be great if the website could just be honest about these things. Media outlet are running out of words to use to describe the conflict..civil war was the phrase designed to describe 100% what is going on now. 90.244.8.83 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason is that with the Iranian invasion (They pretty much kicked ISIS out of Tikrit) and the other stuff going on in Syria, this may actually turn into something much biggerEricl (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Monitor says they haven't been able to dislodge the militants from Tikrit. It's a limited deployment of special forces so far, sort of like Syria. Also,Saddam loyalists are increasingly assuming administrative and political roles in insurgent held cities so there's now even neo-Ba'athist pretender governments in a large chunk of Iraq now and what's left of the legal government can't even get a Quorum to coordinate it's defense and has been reduced to a virtual Iranian satellite. Afghan civil war following the Soviet withdrawal or the Lebanese civil war easily seem like the most relevant examples in this situation.Freepsbane (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians have added this page to List of civil wars and the Western media is also starting to recognize the conflict as such. - Technophant (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy

I would like to invite editors to comment at RfC proposal on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy, essentially resolving whether Iraqi Kurdistan should or shouldn't be added to the "other Dependent territories" under Asia topic.GreyShark (dibra) 18:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox needs to be rewritten, it currently lists the government forces and the Shia militias as separate belligerents, that has not been the case for some time, I also think that maybe the Kurds should be considered a separate belligerent at this point. Charles Essie (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the Shia militias as aligned with government forces. The Kurds have still been cooperating with the government. Perhaps the Kurds should have a dividing line within the column, but I don't think they should be listed as a separate belligerent until there is evidence of consistent conflict with government forces. DylanLacey (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but why is there a dividing line between the government forces and the Shia militias, the Shia militias are pro-government. Charles Essie (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

what About Muqtada Al-Sadr Shiite Militia? it seems they at war with Maliki too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahendra (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Are they? Charles Essie (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

yes they are. just check Al-Jazeera or Al Arabiya. or maybe Google with keywords: Mahmoud Al-Sarkhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahendra (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the other Shia militias, and Iran, they seem like they're all pro-government now. Charles Essie (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Baath declared war on ISIS

Apparently Baath has declared war on ISIS.. BAS News is a Kurdish media company. --TIAYN (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Qatar supports ISIS

Qatar, the largest supporter of Sunni terrorism in the world, actively supports ISIS and other Sunni terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, Al-Qaeda (including its various branches across the globe), and others. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

New Title

This name is ridiculous. The conflict has morphed into a full scale war with front lines near constant heavy combat. Iraqi Civil War, Iraq Conflict, War in Mesopotamia whatever, but it's certainly not an insurgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.84.69 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a significant amount of reliable sources to support what you're saying or that's just your opinion? Ps: If the name of the article should be changed, why not Iraqi insurgency (2011-present)? Coltsfan (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Insurgency" is an accurate description of the conflict and is used by many sources. Do you what the definition of that word is? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

Basically it is a Civil War. Iraqi Civil War fits better than Iraqi insurgency (2011-present) Helliko (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what fits better, the article uses what is the commonly accepted name for the conflict. Unless or until there are reliable sources referring to it as the Iraqi Civil War, it won't be known in Wikipedia by that name. Gazkthul (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But shouldn't we rename this article to Iraqi insurgency (2011-present)? After all, the article Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–92) is not "Civil war in Afghanistan (post-Soviet withdrawal)". Coltsfan (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Common name is insurgency, not civil war. However, maybe we should change to Iraqi insurgency (2011-present), but I'm fine ether way. EkoGraf (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what a president would do when "counseling" with over 400 American servicemen. It's advice, is not it? And Americans are already bombing Iraq. 177.182.50.110 (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State

As the Iraqi Ba'ath party has declared war on ISIS, and other factions such as Ansar al-Islam and Al-Nusra are also fighting with ISIS, should the Islamic State be separated from the other more mainstream and indigenous groups for the sake of clarity? StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split into new article

We have to admit that there is a mess concerning this subject on Wikipedia and WP:OR-like articles have showed up recently, such as Spillover of the Syrian Civil War, as well as a campaignbox without a parent article which was thankfully redirected. In my opinion such articles are damaging our encyclopedia and a decision has to be made now. Some might disagree with the title of the proposed new article, but this is not our main concern now. We clearly have a new conflict that deserves an article of its own, since the intensity of the current fighting in this recent escalation (along with the Anbar campaign (2013–14)) is entirely different from that of the past four years since the US' withdrawal. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we have a mess currently, with no main article for the 2014 events in particular. Someone tried to do such a thing with 2014 Iraq conflict (see this version of that page), but this was promptly redirected. I'd ask that this be revived, and that other articles instead be merged into it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed – a 'spin off', more focused article is probably in order here. I'd also suggest a separate "timeline" article (something along the lines of Timeline of the war in Donbass, but for this topic) as well. --IJBall (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This has caused much frustration at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates since there is no concise target article for the conflict that's making headlines. See discussions at WP:ITN/C#Remove Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) from Ongoing and [1] (can't wikilink because section header has brackets). AHeneen (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! How's about we do this: The Arab Winter article is already up, and they took down my preliminary revisions for some reason (partly because it wasn't finished), how about using that as a hub, and having a series of articles entitled "The Wars of the Arab Winter." You can have "Wars of the Arab Winter: The Iraqi Front", "Wars of the Arab Winter: The Lebanese Front" (August has seen some genuine major battles), etc. Ericl (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Let's just revive 2014 Iraq conflict. It already exists at this version. All we have to do is restore it, and start the merging process. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I've been trying to do that Here we need a single hub article to reflect the current and future situations. The "Iraqi insurgency" pretty much ended last December when it evolved into a new phase. This is sort of like World War II in the Pacific, where several separate wars merged into one. If you want to change the title of the article feel free, but keep the structure and don't go backwardsEricl (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Arab Winter article is full of sources dating back to 2011 and 2012, I do not think it is the WP:COMMONNAME nor is there any evidence that this term links all of the current events together. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: A new article has been spun off at Timeline of the Wars of the Arab Winter: Iraq, and I just made that same point at the new article – the current title is absolutely not the COMMONNAME, and some new title needs to replace it. --IJBall (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, here's the direct link to the 2014 Iraq conflict article if anyone wants that... --IJBall (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we just delete these "Arab Winter" articles? Again where are the sources saying these conflicts are all connected like they were during the Arab Spring? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I also notice now Timeline of the Wars of the Arab Winter: ISIS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As I have said many times before, if someone can find a better name to change it to, PLEASE DO SO!!!!! As to all of a sudden people noticing me being here, I've been here for years. But did anyone notice that no one has updated the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War in almost nine months? The spillover page hadn't been touched for months either. I didn't create the Arab Winter page, nor did I put the chart there. The thing had been there for about a year and nobody minded. As to this particular page, The Iraqi insurgence has been over for months. It's been called a civil war, and all sort of other things, and there were signs on top saying to the effect of "please fork this" or whatever the term is used.So I did.Ericl (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Arab Winter page was created on July 19, 2014‎ and was linked to just one source from the telegraph that dated back to 2012. I know you added sources but the majority of them also date back to 2011/2012. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the current available choices, I think I'd go for Timeline of the 2014 Iraq conflict as the best of the choices for your new spin-off article. (Then maybe somebody can restore some text to the 2014 Iraq conflict article proper, and fill that one out again as an 'overview' article...) --IJBall (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that. We can't have Timeline of [main article] because it is too soon to consider a sub-article of a parent article that doesn't exist yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, this topic needs a timeline article, call it what you will – I'm certainly willing to hear other suggestions for titling Eric1's new spin-off article... --IJBall (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

These conflicts, at least when it comes to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, are connected. Of course they're connected. ISIS!!! The term "Arab Winter" was used by commontators for when all these wonderful revolutions turned to manure. BTW ISIS is in Libya.Ericl (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if they're connected, they don't need this kind of common "branding" among the various Wikipedia articles, especially when the term used is one that virtually no one following these conflicts has heard of. This "Arab Winter" thing completely fails on COMMONNAME grounds. --IJBall (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Knowledgekid87, we are not discussing the Arab Winter here. I agree that Ericl made huge undiscussed edits without consensus that are very likely originally research and I have politely asked him to undo these edits on histalk page. But we are here to discuss a new main article about the ISIS offensive (I proposed 2013–14 Islamic State offensive in Iraq and Syria). Do you oppose that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• No I do not oppose that, there are just too many issues going on at once I guess is all now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As RGloucester suggested, I think the first step is to spin-off the content. We can deal with the other issues one at a time after that... --IJBall (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay well in that case I Support the split off of a new article, just have one that follows WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said again and again, I don't CARE about the name. If you want to use THAT one, I support it.Ericl (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored 2014 Iraq conflict and redirected both Timeline of the Wars of the Arab Winter: Iraq and Timeline of the Wars of the Arab Winter: ISIS to it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Decent solution. I still think the timeline stuff should itself be spun off in to its own separate article. But this is a good starting point until the overview text of the 2014 Iraq conflict article can be fleshed out first. --IJBall (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New war

Hi there,

As a reader and admirer of many people work here, I propose the following:

• There should exist a new page 2014 Iraq conflict with the new situation after the ISIS seizure of many territories...
• I don't see the situation same as before, first and foremost it is not any more an insurgency but resembles conventional war.

See War in Somalia for similar example.

Cheers, --78.0.110.32 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to create a new article for the 2014 events. We already have June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive, Battle of Tikrit, Battle of Zumar, Battle of Sinjar, and Yazidi genocide. These articles cover the material just fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, things are great as they are. Why do people keep insisting on new articles and/or new names, when we can still add a lot of content to the already existing ones? --Skycycle (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed with the new international dimension we have moved far beyond an insurgency or civil war. This is a new conflict. Juno (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No sources its a new conflict. Any edit of that kind would be unsourced Original Research which is prohibited by Wikipedia. A new phase it may be but not a new conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Belligerents

If a country supports KRG with humanitarian aid as Denmark and the Netherlands[2] does, should they be added in the infobox? Right now I've added Denmark (humanitarian aid) with the countries supporting KRG with millitary aid. --Ahmetyal (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid should not be listed, as any other non-military relations. If someone sells or gives cornflakes or apples to one of the sides, it doesn't make them a belligerent or a supporter.GreyShark (dibra) 19:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Iraqi Army is not 300,000 anymore

This article is not up to date on the Iraqi army's numbers. Back in June, 90,000 Iraqi soldiers deserted, as has been said on wikipedia. Not only that, but thousands have also been killed or captured. I recommend we reduce the size of the Iraqi army to 200,000 instead of 300,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.222.21 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that we're done with that...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus, and the discussion is stale -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Let's change the name of THIS article to Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013)Ericl (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Why? The Iraqi insurgency is still ongoing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per Future. EkoGraf (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Support an insurgency is no more, now it's open conventional warfare. --Reader1987 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You got a source the insurgency ended? Conflicts evolve. Sri Lankan civil war was first an insurgency that than evolved into open conventional warfare but it was still regarded as the same conflict. Unless you have a source that explicetly says the insurgency ended any edit of that kind would be considered unsourced Original Research. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support We already have an article detailing the ISIS war here - 2014 American intervention in Iraq, this page needs to be renamed Iraqi insurgency (2011-2013), simply because this "insurgency" has reached a new phase. The Iraqi Insurgency was a violent period after the Iraq War, and preceded the events of the rise of ISIS.--Empire of War (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The insurgency did not end in 2013. Gazkthul (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying the insurgency didn't end Gazkthul, but that it entered a new phase, perhaps it would be better to rename this article as the Iraqi Civil Unrest (2011-2013). In any case this is not the article that will document the ISIS war, we already have one for that.--Empire of War (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It didn't really change in form until June/July 2014 when ISIS captured Mosul, so I don't think the proposed new title is has the right date range. Also I think we should wait to see how things turn out, I expect that due to American close air support ISIS are likely to shift back to classical insurgency tactics rather than move around in huge convoys that are easy targets for the USAF. Gazkthul (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It changed when ISIS laid siege to Mount Sinjar, which in turn led to a new coalition war.--101.165.145.61 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2014 (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.

Insurgency or civil war? (RfC)

This article entitles the conflict as an insurgency but a related template uses the title Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War. I think that either one type of wording or the other should be used and would appreciate comments. Reference to an "Iraq Civil War" or an "Iraqi Civil War" would be analogous with the "Syrian Civil War" but "Iraqi insurgency" is more commonly used. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Insurgency per RS. Against this standard

The U.S. Army uses five criteria to recognize civil war: 1) The contestants must control territory; (yes) 2) there must be a functioning government; (sort of) 3) each side must enjoy some foreign recognition; (no) 4) the sides should have identifiable and regular armed forces; (yes) and 5) they should engage in major military operations. (yes) [3] the analysis is from summer 2007, the yes/nos are mine based on my assessment of the 2014 situation. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Current ISIS is war is too big to fall under insurgency

I think this article should end just before the summer 2014 ISIS invasion of Iraq. Anything after should have an article of its own as the scale of events that follow are too big and comprehensive to be labelled with the simple sporadic insurgency that we saw during the Iraq War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozad655 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 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: not moved. Number 57 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) → Iraqi Civil War – WP:COMMONNAME, per Google Search and Google Scholar results. kazekagetr 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• It could be renamed also as Iraqi Civil War (2011–present)
• Google search results: Iraqi insurgency - 509k, Iraqi Civil War - 12m
• Google scholar results: Iraqi insurgency - 35k, Iraqi Civil War - 183k kazekagetr 21:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Red Slash 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment it's not the only Iraqi civil war, every major insurgency large enough to be a war would be an Iraqi civil war. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Provisional oppose. This is a topic that I had earlier broached above but was persuaded by the arguments of Legacypac. GregKaye 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)4

• Oppose there was already several Iraqi Civil War's so the raw Google hit counts are not relevant. You need to present evidence that the 2011-present conflict is widely called the Iraqi Civil War and since it fails most definitions of a civil war, that will be tough. Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comment Iraq is definitely in a civil war right now, both sides hold large amounts of territory and the government has completely lost control of a third of the nation. Whether ISIS is internationally recognized doesn't matter because whether the world likes them or not, they are still a major faction with their own army contesting the government on who is going to rule Iraq. The amount of people killed from violence in Iraq during 2014 was around 25,000, which is too high to be considered a simple insurgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.53.19 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, the nominator has not made a strong reason for the name change. That being said one paper from the Hudson Institute calls it the "Second Sunni Insurgency", and Reuters used the insurgent term in 2012. Now I am not presenting a strong argument, but it is a start.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Legacypac.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 22 February 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.

Syria-Iraq Civil War

Maybe it's time to create another, broader article, encompassing both the Syrian civil war and the events in Iraq? (Here is an infobox I made. Mainly because I wanted to practice making infoboxes, but it could be used as an early template I guess.)

Syria-Iraq Civil War
Part of Arab Spring and Iraq War
As of June 2014. Dark Red Controlled by Iraqi Government Light Red Controlled by Syrian Government Grey Controlled by Islamic State Green Controlled by the Syrian Opposition Light Yellow Controlled by Iraqi Kurds Dark Yellow Controlled by Syrian Kurds
Date 15th March 2011 - Present Location Syria and Iraq Status Ongoing
Belligerents
Iraqi Government Syrian Government Iran Hezbollah Al-Abbas Brigade PFLP-GC Special Groups Badr Brigades Mukhtar Army Supported by Russia North Korea United States Partially Allied With Iraqi Kurdistan Syrian Kurdistan Syriac Military Council Sutoro	Islamic Front Free Syrian Army Al-Nusra Front Syria Revolutionaries Front Army of Mujahedeen Harakat Hazm Sham Legion Supported by Qatar Saudi Arabia Turkey United States Libya Partially Allied With Islamic State Ansar al-Islam Iraqi Ba'ath Party Loyalists Free Iraqi Army Hamas of Iraq Supported by Saudi Arabia
Commanders and leaders
Nouri al-Maliki Bashar al-Assad Qasem Soleimani Hassan Nasrallah Ahmed Jibril Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani Partially Allied With Massoud Barzani Salih Muslim Muhammad	Ahmed Issa al-Sheikh Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir Abu Mohammad al-Golani Jamal Maarouf Partially Allied With Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Abu Hashim al Ibrahim Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri
Strength
Iraqi Government 600,000 Syrian Government 300,000 Badr Brigade 10,000 Hezbollah 9,000 Al-Abbas Brigade 7,000 Special Groups 7,000 Iran 800 Iraqi Kurdistan 30,000	Islamic Front 60,000 Free Syrian Army 50,000 Al-Nusra Front 8,000 Islamic State 20,000 Iraqi Ba'ath Party Loyalists 10,000
Casualties and losses
Total > 200,000

I Agree, the Entire Articles need to Reform without discarding Old Materials, good Effort for creating the Basis Form By the Way (118.136.151.190 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC))

Oppose - There is no need for a new article. The Syrian civil war article and this article cover the material just fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Future, also you have not provided sources classifying the conflict as such (Syria-Iraq civil war). At this point, it would be Original Research. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Sooner or later it will be a single war but this move needs more time. I see Irqi Civil War as the best title. 3bdulelah (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - the two conflicts are connected and influence each other, but are not one and the same. Also, Iraq arguably already had a civil war during 2006/07, so that would create more confusion. I think the current title is adequate for now. Skycycle (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

guys. i have new Source for Current Casualties Number http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2014/08/july-2014-over-5000-casualties-in-iraq.htmlAhendra (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, but I think a better title would be Iraqi–Syrian War. Charles Essie (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The title you're proposing can't really work, because it implies that Iraq is at war with Syria, which isn't happening (and I can't recall a war between Iraq and Syria in the past millennium either). See Mexican-American War and Jewish-Roman Wars for examples. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - There is already an article for the broader War on ISIS. Needless to say, the creation of a new article would be redundant. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Why is Russia listed as a belligerent? Even the two citations attached to it only mention Iraq buying weapons from Russia, not direct Russian participation in the conflict. List Russia as a supporter instead maybe?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to do it--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I can't find how to edit the infobox, so whatever--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The infobox exists as a separate template, here's the link to it (Template:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) infobox). Charles Essie (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Civil War

This is not an insurgency anymore. Article name should be changed to "Iraqi Civil War" or "Iraq conflict". Anything but "Insurgency", the term implies a conflict of much lower intensity. -Mudos

Exactly! This has been discussed before, and for reasons I cannot fathom, this keeps on not happening. My title of choice would be Iraq War (2011–present). Charles Essie (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article could still use work

Much of the content here should be relocated into separate timeline article(s). Then the space could be filled with information about other things, such as the parties involved, the involvement of outside forces, the impact of the conflict, the conflicts between rival insurgents, ect. I think the Syrian Civil War article could serve as a good role model. Charles Essie (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not enough information at present to move information into a new article. We usually only do this when the article becomes too long to read or navigate comfortable (usually beyond 100,000 bytes). Right now, the article is far from over-sized, so I see no need for a move, which would basically be creating a content fork. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

But I agree that this article should be modeled more closely after the Syrian Civil War article. However, we can't really split the article into multiple timeline articles without having enough information to do so. And even then, we will still need something to fill the empty slots for the sections for each year in this article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, that's mainly what I wanted anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the timeline articles for 2011,2012,2013 could certainly lower the weight of this one and help make the article modular.GreyShark (dibra) 19:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles like WWII (a good article) have a narrative of the war in the article (in addition to timeline articles Timeline of World War II). It we are to remove the timelines to their own articles, I think we should still leave a summary for each timeline in this article, so that this article at least has some narrative.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Charles Essie (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per GreyShark and Future and Charles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 15:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) → Iraqi Civil War or Second Iraqi War – This is a conflict between two mainly conventional military forces and their allies (that being ISIS and Iraq), it hasn't been a pure insurgency for a while now; the article should reflect the actual state of the conflict. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 97.96.33.181 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Second Iraqi War is something of a misdemeanor considering that the 2003–11 Iraq War is often referred to as the Second Iraq War (the First Iraq War being the Gulf War). I do think that Iraqi Civil War might work however, or maybe Iraq War (2011–present). Charles Essie (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not Third Iraqi War then? --George Ho (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

True, so Third Iraqi War could work also, or Iraqi Civil War or Iraqi War (2011-present), all three honestly have merit, through out of the three I would say that the third may be the most neutral and the best possible compromise 97.96.33.181 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Iraq has had several "civil wars" ; and counting "x-th Iraqi War" is horrid, since it depends on the authority of what is a war and who is counting. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose current proposal – ISIL isn't an "internal" political force either. This isn't a "civil war" in any traditional sense. --IJBall (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• That's why I suggested Iraq War (2011–present). After all, the current conflict is pretty much a continuation of the Iraq War. Charles Essie (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Its continued conflict as the result of insurgency. GregKaye 19:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I like Iraq War (2011-present) , just like the Afghan Civil War articles are set up. Iraqi Civil War (2011-present) would also be good.- (Mudos (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

• Support The conflict in iraq is a sunni rebellion/revolution which has become a sectarian civil war It exactly fits the definition of civil war, it's not a case of terrorism or insurgency The increase in violence in 2006 was called a civil war, even though the U.S. then also tried to pretend it was an al-Qaeda Islamist insurgency, everyone knew that it was actually a sunni/Shia sectarian civil war It helps the U.S. to pretend its fighting a islamic state Islamist insurgency now too, even though it's a Sunni revolution Civil war is correct terminology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insurgency is fine. Definition of insurgency: "a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents." OP seems to be confusing insurgency with guerrilla warfare. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Iraq is a country with a history of empires that covers multiple millennia – it has had a lot of wars (some civil and some not civil). It is improper to presume that the ones we don't personally remember don't need to be considered when counting them. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:55, 22 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.

Requested move 17 May 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 insurgency (2011–2013) by UASR (talk · contribs). I am procedurally closing this RM as a result. Jenks24 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) → Iraq War (2011–present) – The war can not be really called an insurgency in any sense of the word anymore, It's mainly between two conventional militaries and various paramilitary allies (the Iraqi Government and ISIL; the latter of which functions at this point at a state-like structure with a conventional military force using conventional tactics) and the article name should reflect that. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 97.96.33.181 (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

97.96.33.181 have you read the above discussion? GregKaye 17:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support per above. I made this proposal in the above discussion. I was planning on doing this but I guess you beat me to it. I would also suggest that Iraq War be moved to Iraq War (2003–11) and that a new umbrella article be created to provide an overview of the fighting from 2003 to the present. After all, these are really two phases of the same war. Just like the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) consisted of multiple phases. Charles Essie (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Counter-proposal Close this article as Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) (to reflect a specific period of a low-level insurgency) and open a new article titled Iraq conflict (2014–present) which will cover events starting with the escalation of violence at the beginning of 2014 that evolved into largely conventional warfare between ISIL and all of other belligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you could argue that the 2014 escalation was the start of a new phase of the war. By the way what does everyone think about my proposal for an umbrella article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The "counter-proposal" by EkoGraf appears sound, however, what do reliable sources say? We cannot be changing article titles based on our own opinions. Therefore, until someone can point to reliable sources that delineate periods of conflict in Iraq, I have to oppose all move requests.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles Essie RightCowLeftCoast Sources already describe a period of escalation since early 2014 as ISIS rose to a conventional fighting force from a guerrilla one. They are specifically calling this period the rise of ISIS. [4][5][6][7][8][9] They mostly point to when ISIS captured Fallujah and than onwards. One source even points to the start of an all-out revolt on the eve of New Year 2014. This is enough to consider this period a starting point for a new phase of the conflict and the ending of the previous low-level insurgency. As for an umbrella article Charles Essie, I would not mind an article titled Iraq conflict (2003-present) which would be separated into three phases: Iraq war; Iraqi insurgency (2011-present); Iraq conflict (2014-present). Just not sure about changing the title of Iraq war to Iraq war (2003-2011) because that's how all reliable sources simply call this period. Due to this, like I said before, the umbrella (2003-present) and 2014-present articles should be titled Iraq conflict, not war. EkoGraf (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose I propose a new umbrella page called War against IS, including the Syrian Civil War, Civil war in Iraq (2014-present) and the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) 118.69.34.205 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose We already have an umbrella article Military intervention against ISIL. EkoGraf (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Another counter-proposal

I agree with EkoGraf's proposal to close this article as Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) and to create a new article named Iraq War (2014–present). This also means that Iraq War should be moved to Iraq War (2003–2011), because saying that the conflict in Iraq ended when American troops withdrew from the country is US government PoV which Wikipedia is not obliged to follow. Many sources do refer to the current escalation as a "war". [10] [11] [12] [13] Here are the changes I propose:

• Iraq War → Iraq War (2003–11) or War in Iraq (2003–11). This means that all the sub-pages should also be moved accordingly. I will list them here to make it easier for the moving admin, if there happens to be a consensus for this:
  • Lead-up to the Iraq War
  • Timeline of the Iraq War
  • List of bombings during the Iraq War
  • Opposition to the Iraq War
  • Protests against the Iraq War
  • Criticism of the Iraq War
  • United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War
  • Iraq War in Anbar Province
  • Damage to Baghdad during the Iraq War
  • List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War
  • List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War
  • Governmental positions on the Iraq War prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
  • Casualties of the Iraq War
  • Financial cost of the Iraq War
  • Assassinations of the Iraq War
  • Rationale for the Iraq War
  • Legality of the Iraq War
  • Media coverage of the Iraq War
  • Others could be found here
• Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) → Iraqi insurgency (2011–13) or Insurgency in Iraq (2011–13)
• Create Iraq War (2014–present) or War in Iraq (2014–present) (I don't mind using the term "rise" proposed by EkoGraf above which was previously brought up in a discussion here)

Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Support and I also think we should create a new umbrella article (maybe titled Iraq War (2003–present) or War in Iraq (2003–present), or simply Iraq War or War in Iraq). After all, these are all different phases of a single narrative (just like with Afghanistan). Charles Essie (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not supportive of an umbrella article, while related we don't have an umbrella article about Conflicts involving Iraq (1980-present), nor should we. Instead IMHO it is better that these different conflicts be treated as such in the article of History of Iraq, where summaries of the different articles can be included, and hat notes to the main article about those different conflicts are provided.

I am not opposed to the 2014 start date of conflict, based on the references provided above, but what are reliable sources calling the conflict was my question to EkoGraf. Until we can determine what the present conflicts common name is, it should not be Wikipedians to come up with a name of a conflict which has already received hundreds of reliable source significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Google search and see if more results pop up for conflict or war. EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I searched three different things, "Iraq War 2014" (the date added to try and filter out articles about the 2003 invasion), Iraqi conflict 2014 and Iraqi insurgency, the first got 82,100,000 results, the second 49,000,000 results; and the third 495,000 results.

Of course, it's probably an imperfect result, but "Iraq War" seems to be the most common term used for the present conflict. Furthermore, it can be said that the war never truly ended in 2011, the insurgency continued well past the US exit in that year; only really ending when the conflict became a conventional war between Iraq and ISIS after the latter's invasion last year. 97.96.33.181 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I guess if google search has more results for Iraq war 2014 than that should be it. Weather there should be an umbrella article or not it seems we are all in agreement to close this article as Iraqi insurgency 2011-2013 and open a new article titled Iraq war (2014-present). Also, we should than rename Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014) to Timeline of the Iraq war (2014). EkoGraf (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for conducting the search IP editor. As Iraq war appears to be the commonname, than I support the naming scheme proposed by EkoGraf. Where Iraq War remains, this article is moved to Iraq insurgency (2011-2013), and the article Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014) is moved to Iraq war (2014-present). Then, a hatnote be provided in article Iraq War since it is the primary topic of that name.

I will notify WP:MILHIST of this topic, as they are the SMEs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 23 May 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.

Requested move 18 June 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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013) → Iraq War (2011–present) – This is merely a pagse of a protracted Iraq War. There is no need to differentiate this from the other one between 2003-2011. If there is no connection between the two then it should be debated. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Also, read the above discussion. Clear consensus was reached on the current title and to separate it from the 2014-present conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 23:09, 5 July 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.

Umbrella article

Above, I suggested the creation of an umbrella article for Iraq's now twelve-year-old war (possibly titled Iraq War (2003–present) or War in Iraq (2003–present), or simply Iraq War or War in Iraq). As with the War in Afghanistan (1978–present), what we've seen in Iraq from 2003 to the present constitutes a single war with multiple phases. After all, we already many umbrella articles for other recent Arab world conflicts (such as Egyptian Crisis (2011–14), Libyan Crisis (2011–present) and Yemeni Crisis (2011–present)). Charles Essie (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Lets first finish the part we all agreed on, the renaming of this article to Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013). And opening a new one for the Iraq war (2014-present). So, anybody going to do it? EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not me, as I'm currently in the middle of real life obligations and I didn't follow this conflict well enough. I'm also opposed to the idea of creating an umbrella article. This is too premature and unneeded right now, in my opinion. Let's just work on those splits and title moves first. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How is it premature? Iraq has been in a consistent state of war since 2003. It's been most of the same belligerents for all this time. If that's not a single (if multi-phase) war than what is? It's also needed because it would make the confusing myriad of articles (Iraq War, 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi insurgency (2003–11), Iraqi insurgency (2003–06), Sectarian violence in Iraq (2006–07), Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013), Iraq War (2014–present), Military intervention against ISIL, American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present), ect.) much easier to navigate. Charles Essie (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I have no opinion but is it really necessary? Jackninja5 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per my above reasons. Charles Essie (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Other suggestion: Iraqi Crisis (2003–present). 152.250.110.79 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No because then you should probably name the article Iraq War (1980- Present) which starts with the Iraq-Iran War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:101:8610:88B1:EA45:AF98:C328 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Iran–Iraq War and the Gulf War were three years apart and there was no war that took place in between them. There was also no contiguous in the twelve-year gap between the Gulf War and the Iraq War. There is, however, a contiguous war in Iraq that's been going from 2003 to the present which I still maintain needs an umbrella article. That said, maybe a separate article titled Persian Gulf Wars could be created as well because even though they were separate wars, they were still related. Charles Essie (talk) 21:37, 9 August 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Iraqi insurgency (2011–13). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090302175610/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111218112907/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/17/9528197-the-war-is-over-last-us-soldiers-leave-iraq to http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/17/9528197-the-war-is-over-last-us-soldiers-leave-iraq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140302071800/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkBXOpfsOg-o_42-50OmRjyf2X_g to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkBXOpfsOg-o_42-50OmRjyf2X_g

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2016 (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)