Talk:Anbar campaign (2013–2014)

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

Naming of the article[edit]

Should probably be similar to Northern Mali conflict in convention, considering both describe the sections of the countries the conflict is occurring in. There is no evidence this conflict is occurring anywhere else in Iraq than Anbar at this point. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive of what? The Syrian civil war? There is nothing here that makes the entire scope of this conflict an offensive... it is its own conflict stoked by the Sunni-Shia tensions over the past few weeks. it is very similar to the rebellion in Mali and would best be served as Anbar conflict or 2014 Anbar conflict... not offensive... --Kuzwa (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a seperate conflict from the ISIS insurgency thats ongoing in the country, its an offensive by ISIS against Iraqi army and pro-government militia positions.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not similar to Mali at all. This is part of the Iraqi insurgency, which has been ongoing for years. This is the biggest offensive ISIS has launched since American forces left in 2011.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what, the Northern Mali conflict is part of a larger North African insurgency as well but it is not an offensive it is it's own conflict, similar to this... this conflict is much more directed as perhaps a rebellion but not an offensive... an offensive would be a tactical objective of a larger war, and the insurgency itself is not a war anymore than random sectarian violence. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned to be an offensive there must be a well established conflict, to which one side is trying to attain a tactical or strategic goal against the other. The insurgency is not really a classical conflict more so than just a ragtag article documenting violence that has gone on in the country since the U.S. departure. If conflict is not an appropriate name for this article that is fine, but neither is offensive, in fact rebellion may be the best descriptor of what is going on right now in Iraq. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS does have a tactical objective, to sieze Ramadi and Fallujah. This is a conventional offensive by ISIS forces against the Iraqi government, they are fighting openly in force in pitched battles in Fallujah and Ramadi.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it does now, that is not how it started, there was a pull out of Iraqi troops and the locals including ISIS fighters tried to proclaim an uprising against them. Nothing military or offensive about that, and then the Iraqi government realizing that the ISIS was trying to take over sent the military back to the city and started the fighting. An offensive implies that this was planned, there is nothing to suggest that this was anything other than opportunism arising from growing discontent with the government. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to change the name back to anbar conflict, rather indeed multiple editors have taken action in opposition to that name.XavierGreen (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus period. Majority does not equal consensus. I am fine with changing from Anbar conflict but an offensive certainly does not describe what this fighting is. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also by the start date we are using of December 30th, we are saying this event starts with the Iraqi army dispersing the protest camp in Ramadi, all actions afterwards make it look like a reaction to this event which would make it closest to a rebellion in my opinion. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborating further, the original incident we are using would make this look like a rebellion, then a recognized enemy occupied the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi it is not clear this was some sort of planned military objective rather than just a reaction to the events in the protest camp which seems more like a reaction to the government than a planned offensive. I do not see how we can call this a conventional offensive. There is nothing conventional about it. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of the new title. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the beast[edit]

Okay. The simple fact is, is that it's spillover from the Syria war. The AQ's been running amuck in Western Anbar for the better part of a year, and they've got a large swath of land from Central Syria to Fallujah, and nearly ten thousand civilians have been killed since the start of 2013. This is NOT something new, it's a battle in a war that's been going on for a while.Ericl (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS or ISIL[edit]

The Iraq insurgency article uses ISIL while this uses ISIS, which is it? --Kuzwa (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter. Both refer to the same organization. As long as it's consistently used in this article, that's fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same ISIL stands for Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant while ISIS stands for Islamic state of Iraq And al-Sham/Syria. Both are different translations of the Arabic word الشام. The second is more commonly used. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been decided on the ISIS page that ISIS will be standard acronym. I've worked on changing this in all related pages. They are equivalent however.- Technophant (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/iraq-fallujah-al-qaeda-20141702218689268.html http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/01/al-qaeda-testing-loyalties-iraq-20141692210911233.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/isil-calls-iraq-sunnis-keep-fighting-2014186554213170.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/iraqi-forces-bomb-east-fallujah-20141518832201807.html >> Deal struck to drive out fighters in Iraq >> fallujah pact in the making to keep army out >> Iraq army assault under way to eject al-Qaeda>> Iraqi PM calls for world's help amid violence >> US agrees to send new arms, artillery to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda>> Iraqi army launches major assault on Ramadi>> Iraqi army launches major assault on Ramadi>> Dozens killed in string of Baghdad bombings>> UN says 140,000 fled violence in Iraq's Anbar> Explainer: Iraq and the ISIL >> Osama al-Nujaifi: 'We want an Iraqi solution'>> Iraq's PM promises perks to Sunni allies *]\p[>> Iraq announces 72-hour truce in Fallujah >> EXCLUSIVE-Iraq signs deal to buy arms, ammunition from Iran - documents>> US delivers 100 Hellfire missiles to Iraq >> Scores killed in clashes in Iraq's Ramadi >> Violence surges in Iraq's Anbar province(Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Ramadi[edit]

Iraqi security forces backed by tribal fighters regained control in the centre of Anbar's provincial capital Ramadi on Monday, another special forces officer said. Clashes continued in the surrounding areas on Tuesday, he added. In the city centre, government offices, hospitals and markets reopened.Reuters Daily Independent 4 News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy paste from the article as that is a copyvio. By all means continue to add what you are adding, just rewrite it.(Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Maliki calls it a war[edit]

Speaking in his weekly televised address on Wednesday, Maliki also pledged to continue the "sacred war" against al-Qaeda's local branch - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - and finish the push to retake Fallujah and Ramadi. "I call on those who were lured to be part of the terrorism machine led by al-Qaeda to return to reason," he said. In return, he promised that his government will "open a new page to settle their cases so that they won't be fuel for the war that is led by al-Qaeda". http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/iraq-forges-new-strategy-defeat-fighters-201418142439592864.html --93.137.132.242 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric by partisans is not enough to change the article here. By all means add his view but it wont change the page title.(Lihaas (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Casualties[edit]

Refs 13 and 14 should be broken out either in the infobox or as a note. But the breaking out in the references throws everthing out of whack.(Lihaas (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

From 2 divisions sent in action, 18000 men either died or deserted ? what exactly is left there to put up a fight ???? TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IraqiNews.com reliablity[edit]

IraqiNews.com is not a reliable source since it is extremely pro-government and even a part of Iraq's propaganda system. If anyone has any news from this site, additional referrences should be included before adding the news. For example, this site has said that the Iraqi army and security forces have opended Fallujah dam gates while the ISIS and rebels opened it as the water has been overwhelemd.

Map[edit]

FutureTrillionaire quite rightly pointed out there were a number of problems with the map with certain areas being shown as being under full opposition control when in actuality their situation was more ambiguous. In order to resolve this, and also after going through several of the original sources cited, I've changed a number of them to contested. Khalidya has been changed to govt control, as the Elaph source cited by ISW states that government forces retook it (alongside Hit). Are there any other issues people can currently see with it? MrPenguin20 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the changes. I think the map is good now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and change scope[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 04:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Anbar clashes (2013–14) → ISIL insurgency in Iraq – Recently ISIL militants succesfully managed to fully overrun the second largest city in Iraq.[1] Cities such as Shirqat and Samarra in Salaheddin are also under attack. I think a title like ISIL insurgency in Iraq would make more sense now. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC) --Kathovo talk 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak support but another name I would prefer.
☒N Against - there already is a large and detailed article on the Iraqi insurgency (post US withdrawal) that is continuously updated (including by me). The city-scale attacks are nothingMosul offensive new, they began in April last year with a few smaller attempts and escalated in January this year in Fallujah and Ramadi, the former still under control of ISIL militants. With that in mind, the Mosul offensive is a part of the insurgency, but definitely warrants a separate article - it is by far the biggest success of ISIL in recent years (perhaps ever) and the article will only keep expanding, especially in light of a potential humanitarian crisis and a government military response. Skycycle (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More breaking news coming out of Iraq this afternoon - insurgents appear to be streaming south and have taken over Baiji (Iraq's biggest oil refinery is there) and Tikrit (capital of Saladin province). I still believe a new article is not needed, and the offensive one will be expanded, but we might need to start thinking of a new name. It really depends on how the government responds - will this be an all-out war or something different? It could be named as something along the lines of June 2014 ISIL Iraqi offensive (a bit too long, but gives you an idea), and it could be different - depends on the events to follow in the next few days. Skycycle (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The ISIS insurgency has already gone beyond northern Iraq and is threatening to take over most if not all of the country. It's already be decided on Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant that the standard acronym is ISIS. - Technophant (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Merger of Mosul offensive[edit]

There is a clear consensus against this proposal. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Anbar clashes (2013–14) → Mosul offensive – Currently the content on the actual attack is very short for its own page. Aas such, I think it could be better placed as a subsection of this as the background is primarily discussing this page.Lihaas (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
☒N Against - the Anbar clashes originated under different circumstances, and in any case are a separate part of the Iraqi insurgency. Best case scenario would be to expand the 2014 Mosul article into a larger one, if the offensive continues to expand - but for that we would have to wait a bit IMO. Skycycle (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Against - Geographically Mosul is not part of Anbar at all. So it cannot be part of Anbar clashes (2013–14) unless we want to rethink our title for al Anbar into something much much larger and more inclusive for both. werldwayd (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Strong oppose - I agree with Werldwayd. Also, they were two separate military events, though part of the same insurgency. B14709 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Oppose - Per everyone else. EkoGraf (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Against - The above reasons. --BALA.R (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Oppose They are not same. per above. Alborzagros (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Oppose That article is nolonger a stub and its scope has changed to cover all of northern Iraq.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Oppose - the articles are completely different. PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Oppose - Per all. Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 03:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Oppose - Per all. - Technophant (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Inclusion of Mosul capture?[edit]

I don't understand why the capture of Mosul is included in this article. It isn't even in Anbar province. B14709 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article relate to 2014 Northern Iraq offensive ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaish al-Rashideen?[edit]

Can we get a source for the involvement of the Rashidin Army? 130.64.98.86 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anbar campaign (2013–14). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anbar campaign (2013–14). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New umbrella article created[edit]

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) 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anbar_campaign_(2013–2014)&oldid=1198674804"