Talk:2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict

Naming

Stop moving the page. It's called the Third Iraqi-Kurdish War and thats it. never change it. -Ibrahimweed

Are you sure that it's a common name? Move it to 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. Not the war so far. 95.133.219.133 (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict is a far better name, no one has reported this as a war yet. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think its so new, there hasn't been much formal references to it either way. Third Iraqi–Kurdish War does help to keep track of how many there has been! At the moment, it's barely a conflict, but it could certainly blow out into a full blown war.:-).

How about "Kirkuk Crisis"? Many media outlets have named it as such, and it's not a full-blown war yet. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

PKK involvement

The belligerents lists the PKK as allied to the Iraq Kurdistan. Is there any reliable sources confirming PKK involvement in Kirkuk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpanishSnake (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There are references here: Battle of Kirkuk (2017). David O. Johnson (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the sources used actually disputed their presence, rather than affirming it. I fixed it so that the source (i.e. the statement by the Peshmerga) is not misrepresented.--Calthinus (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

PUK

Should we add PUK on Iraqi side? Beshogur (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

lol, nah. Ethanbas ^(talk) 09:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

PUK should be in iraqi side considering all its Peshmerga troops are withdrawing with co-ordination with the Talabani faction of the PUK — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveKurd (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that PUK should be listed on the Iraqi side, seeing as Kosrat Rasul Ali, the leader of the PUK, has denounced what he sees as an Iraqi invasion. Maybe some military wing of the party should be put on the Iraqi side, but the organisation as a whole does not support the Iraqi invasion- it is a betrayal by some with allegiance to the PUK. SMcM (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

New 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) 19:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Rudaw is Kurdish linked, if you want the 'Kurdish claim' part removed, please add at least one other non-Kurdish supporting source that confirms the claim. Also, are the citations the same article but in different languages or actually different articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.233.190 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Request move

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 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. In future, please do not move articles while they under discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Third Iraqi Kurdish War → Kirkuk Crisis – per WP:COMMONNAME. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

See the talk page for the 2nd Iraqi Civil War, which encompasses the same discussion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is a larger conflict. It's not only about Kirkuk. Even Iraqi government accused Kurds with "declaration of war". This is not a conflict, nor a crisis, this is clearly a war. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - We do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that would let us know that it will be limited to Kirkuk. It already appears to be a wider issue. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - A few days ago this was renamed to '2017 Iraqi-Kurdish conflict' which was very appropriate, I dont know why it got changed back to this silly Third Iraqi Kurdish War, but regardelss this article is not about the Kirkuk battles alone, but the wider conflict. Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Per the arguments given by the users above, and due to the fact that the proposed name is quite misleading. "Kirkuk Crisis" appears to refer to what became the Battle of Kirkuk (2017), not this overall wider conflict, so the "Common Name" argument is very debatable, if not wrongly invoked. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Conflict has also occurred in areas quite far from Kirkuk. --Calthinus (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not just about Kirkuk, though a separate article relating to only Kirkuk clashes can be created. 2017 Iraqi-Kuridsh conflict is a better name for this article as it is a more apt description of the events. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The conflict is (so far) mainly about Kirkuk, and was triggered by the Kurdish referendum there. Furthermore, while "Kirkuk Crisis" gets thousands of hits on google, "Third Kurdish-Iraqi War" is sheer original research. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Move it to 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict instead. 95.133.219.133 (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support, anything is better then the made up "Third Iraqi Kurdish War". I have strong preference for "2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict", because this conflict isn't just about Kirkuk. In fact, most of the fighting has occurred outside the Kirkuk province, with Peshmerga holding their positions at the borders of the Kurdistan Region, resulting in heavy clashes (Kirkuk and Sinjar were never incorporated into the Kurdistan Region). Rob984 (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Alternative rename to 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 07:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I support GreyShark's alternate rename proposal --Calthinus (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Beshogur (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for the 2nd proposed title, Strong Oppose for the original proposal (my vote has not changed). Concerning the new title proposed by GreyShark, that was supposed to be the original title for this article, but someone got too trigger-happy and speedily moved this article without consensus, resulting in the current messed up title that doesn't even fit Wikipedia's WP:MOS standards. After both discussions regarding this article close, someone needs to move this article back to the 2nd proposed title (if the consensus leans towards it). LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support alt proposal. Rob984 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support hyphen -- I've only left it out in order to mess with LightandDark Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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

References

Combatants

Per my edit, Turkmen units are listed as supporting the Iraqi government, hence they should be listed as such in the belligerents part in infobox. Regarding the PUK, I have seen it put as supporting Iraqi government, yet someone has changed to supporting the Kurdish government. Is there an OFFICIAL statement from them? Rudaw articles have claimed that PUK made a deal with government, USA seems to affirm this. Kurdish government have called them 'traitors', they have denied this. Would it be better to simply keep the PUK out of it or put the 'disputed' tag on whichever side they're put on until there are reliable sources? Note: reliable would ideally mean western sources, not the Iraqi government and not the Kurdish government! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.213.234 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be any sources (Kurdish, Western Iraqi) as long as they stand to reliability guidelines. You are confusing reliability with WP:POV, which are different things.GreyShark (dibra) 20:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09, OK. Nevertheless, I do not understand why the ITF keeps getting removed from the combatants section if they are listed as units supporting the Iraqi government? It has a source, yet someone, has removed it again despite the source which is used from another part of the article. Can you please explain why the ITF should or should not be listed as a combatant supporting the Iraqi government? Thanks 122.57.113.14 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Government-sanctioned militias are as good as parts of that country's army, and should not be considered separate combatants. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Iran as a combatant?

It has been confirmed that Iranian officers took part in leading the assault on Kirkuk. Does this make Iran a combatant? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle bias.

I've seen a few pro-Iraqis changed factual information backed with sources, due to personal beliefs. Please do not do this, you know who you are. Kurdish sources are allowed, and if in my edit I use a kurdish source, I clearly state it. Also, please let's not use words such as 'liberate' and 'liberation' as this is bias, and due to many of these areas being fought over being disputed terrority, both kurds-iraqis claim it.

Please sign your posts. Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Turkey’s involvement

I am constantly having to remove editors’ additions which include Turkey as a pro-Iraqi belligerent in the infobox. I see no way in which it warrants such inclusion. No evidence is provided of Turkish involvement in the conflict – other than some anticipated, standard diplomatic statements. What are the thoughts of other editors, and, if you agree with me, what can be done to prevent the constant edit reversions? --Onlyeko (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I imagine the most effective way to prevent said editing would be to find those responsible and murder them, although I suppose that might be rather time consuming and possibly illegal. Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sure you are not serious, but saying that is past the line. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Monsieur Marionnette (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Map

Hello, the map does not reflect the territorial changes that happened in the last month. We don't know the pre-conflict situation by looking at the current one. --89.172.135.101 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There aren't really accurate maps of the pre-conflict situation. Also since the conflict is still somewhat active, I think a map showing the current situation is best for now. A before-after would be better for after the conflict has ended. Rob984 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that the conflict has ended, I think it woukd be good to add the map at Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017. The current one of the post conflict only doesn't let the reader grasp how much territory was lost by the kurds. Note that I'm talking of adding it, not replacing the current one. --Aréat (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Qandil

The Qandil mountains are marked on the map as under KRG control, but they are actually controlled by the PKK and PJAK and have been for many years. See [[2]], [[3]]XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The PKK doesn't govern areas I don't think? It's still KRG-administered to my understanding. PKK forces have been supporting the Peshmerga according to some reports, its hard to draw a line and say part of the KRG is PKK territory. Rob984 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The PKK most certaintly does govern Qandil, its where there headquarters is. The whole mountain is a bunker complex and they directly control the surrounding area.XavierGreen (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Khanaqin protest

"Commander in chief has arrested a number of protectors of the Diyala police commander, to bypass the law." This sentence does not make sense in context, so I have removed it. It is sourced from here "العبادي يوجه بحجز أفراد من حماية قائد شرطة ديالى". Possibly an Arabic reader could access it and insert an appropriate summary?

Death toll?

Given Rudaw's position as a Kurdistan Regional Government official outlet, should KRG officials be the only ones cited for a deathtoll that is neither backed up by Human Rights Watch nor any local counts? It seems pretty biased. Infact almost all of the numbers in the numbers box are from purely kurdish government sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.143 (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of the Kurdish White Flags.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)