Talk:Battle of Kirkuk (2017)

Iraq High‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kurdistan High‑importance

	Kurdistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Battle of Kirkuk (2017), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Battle ended

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

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

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

"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"

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

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

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:

[nested within a larger edit, the fact that reports stated that it was specifically Turkmen parties that had supported Kurdish independence which were attacked was sneakily removed. Just as bad, refs are moved to new statements they don’t support, giving a false sense of attribution.]
[another instance of placing new information between existing statements and the sources they had, making the previous statements appear unsourced, and the new ones attached to sources that don’t support them in addition to the one that does… and another sneaky removal regarding Turkmen supporters of Kurdish independence]
[accuses Kurdish media of being unreliable, but uses this to remove… info sourced to Reuters, Oxfam, and Amnesty International. Misleading to say the least, not to mention that he brings up Rudaw and K24 which… weren’t ‘’anywhere’’ in the text that was deleted. Once again without explanation that Turkmen who supported Kurdish independence were attacked is sneakily removed. ]
[[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kirkuk_%282017%29&type=revision&diff=807867208&oldid=807864209 then after it is pointed out he removed three reputable non-Kurdish sources, he switches tactics to say that Tuz Khurmatu is “not related”]]. That was a fair point regarding Mosul—that probably belongs on the larger conflict page since we don’t’ yet have a page about the clashes around Mosul. But saying that about Tuz Khurma(to/tu) is simply ridiculous given the proximity to Kirkuik. Yes it’s not in the Kirkuk administrative unit but to use that as a reason not to include seems tendentious at best. Indeed the town is in the scenario picture at the top of the page. Oh, and yes, he yet AGAIN manages to sneakily remove the material about pro-Kurdish Turkmen.

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

"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

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?

> 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

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)[reply]