Talk:Battle of Kirkuk (2017)

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

Battle ended[edit]

Why do keep reverting my edits. Everyting in Kirkuk almost fell. And this is about the city and surrounding. It's over. Beshogur (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didnt end, the sources clearly state that its continuing. Two more oil fields were captured by the Iraqi government this morning. See here [1]XavierGreen (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed most of the battles or offensive are also in the surrounding areas so the battle did not end. CPA-5 (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then call it something different. Battle of Kirkuk ended. Iraqi government declared victory, what are you arguing about? Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
XavierGreen, are you aware you violated 3RR rule, please revert your edit. Whole governorate fell to ISF. Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have violated the 3RR rule and are blatently edit warring against consensus. Find a source that says the whole governorate has fallen. Even if the whole governorate fell today, your edits stating that the end date of the offensive is October 16 would still be blatently wrong, since there are sources in the article which clearly state that the offensive continued on to the 17th when several oil fields were siezed by Iraqi forces.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 17 October 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) 19:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Third Iraqi Kurdish War which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias portrayal of Kurdistan Leader[edit]

"Iraq troops have lost over 40 vehicles including guns and ammo to the Kurdistan Regional Goverment. Calls for the dictator of Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani to resign grew, as his campaign for an independet Kurdistan seemed weaker than ever."

Independent, and government is spelled wrong. Plus it's referring to Barzani as a dictator. 204.43.204.122 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberated"[edit]

Please avoid usage of the verb 'to liberate'. This heavily implies that the subject of the sentence is the side the reader should support or sympathise with, and that the forces certain places were taken from are to be considered the reader's enemy, a foreign invader who has been rightfully expelled. Wikipedia should maintain WP:NPOV. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2017 Iraqi Kurdish conflict which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous reverting by Mraslat[edit]

Mraslat would you please quit reverting and removing sourced info, as well as hiding removals and source modifications in larger edits? Here’s what I’m complaining about:

You’re at your third revert today too. I recommend you talk here – if you don’t and revert again, you may be reported. I understand if it’s difficult because English might not be your native language, but your edits must be accountable (and not violate the rule about three reverts). Furthermore, it seems pretty bizarre that you are preoccupied with removing things sourced to Kurdish outlets, and yet you use Iraqi outlets yourself (Baghdad Post, Niqash). Indeed Iraqi media is considered to be ”Not Free”, with a dismal rating, so you should be careful about throwing stones here at Kurdish sources (indeed most of the stuff you removed was actually sourced to Reuters and Amnesty International…). --Calthinus (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ـــــــــــ

The UNAMI report did not that the Turkmen were supporters of the Kurds https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/PR%20Tuz%2019%20Oct%20EN.pdf - website Baghdad Post; Independent, non-party website Niqash; Issued by MICT, a German media organization Many people were alerted to biased websites that publishe false news, later discovered the lack of credibility, hate speech and incitement to violence. - Tuz Khurmatu Another problem before the Kirkuk crisis --mraslat (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems that Tuz Khurmatu had issues before now. However if I understand correctly you're using a strawman. No one said that "the Turkmen (as a whole) were supporters of the Kurds". And no one is saying that UNAMI said that either. But some Turkmen parties supported Kurdish independence. And it has been reported that they were attacked. Reuters thought it worth publishing[[2]]:

Kirkuk residents said on Wednesday that offices belonging to Turkmen parties who supported the Kurdish referendum were attacked in Kirkuk.

Furthermore, while the specific UN report you linked doesn't say it, Al Jazeera does say that UN relief officials reported it, presumably separately [[3]] :

UN relief officials said they had received allegations that 150 houses had been burned and 11 blown up in Tuz Khurmatu and offices of Turkmen political parties in Kirkuk assaulted.

It has been adequately sourced. There is no justification for removing it, especially doing it sneakily and hiding it within larger edits. --Calthinus (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start of "The battle" section[edit]

"On 16 October 2017, the Kurdish Peshmerga ignored a deadline given by Iraq to withdraw. This led to the Iraqi forces and Iranian-backed PMU retaking Kirkuk and its province on 15 October 2017." An event on the 16th cannot lead to an action on the 15th! Either the dates or wrong or the stated causation is incorrect. Could someone with better sources or knowledge than me please amend. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the date to match that given in "Background". If this is incorrect could both please be changed to the correct date. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge March 2018[edit]

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 merge request was: no consensus for merger. Also note that the proposing user has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict and Battle of Kirkuk (2017) are articles that essentially cover the same week of events. I propose a merger of the two articles. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:SIZE. Also destination article is not shown above. Battle is a part of conflict (the more broader topic), but both topics are notable. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the Iraqi-Kurdish conflict is a wider scope article including also the Iraqi Sinjar offensive, minor skirmishes in other areas and international responses. Kirkuk article is about one (major) battle of the conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – Per the arguments given above. The Kirkuk article is a more localized article specific to the clashes in Kirkuk, while the other article is a broader article that covers the entire scope of the conflict. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - This is clearly a separate topic that deserves its own page.--Calthinus (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per reasons already outlined above by editors.Resnjari (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2018 (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.

Poor Wording?[edit]

> Aftermath >> Violence and displacement

On 16 October, The Guardian reported with video footage showing streams of ethnic Kurdish refugees fleeing Kirkuk in cars.[31] >>>Most of the displaced returned quickly to Kirkuk after knowing the truth.[32]<<< On 19 October, Nawzad Hadi, governor of Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government, told reporters that around 18,000 families from Kirkuk and the town of Tuz Khurmatu to had taken refuge in Erbil and Sulaimaniyah, inside KRG territory.[33]

What is the truth? I'm an amateur here, but that is very odd wording and omission of information while it seems to have a certain bias.

InformatorsLV (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify how exactly it is "odd wording" and what information the "omission" is of?--Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention what the "truth" is. That seems like a loaded sentence with only half the context. InformatorsLV (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the source for that was also... sketchy. You make a fair point. --Calthinus (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kirkuk_(2017)&oldid=1206171885"