Talk:Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014)/Archive 1

Move war

I just blocked FutureTrillionaire for breaking 1RR. He broke 1RR before and I gave him a warning (although warnings are not required for 1RR blocks here). I don't want to have to block anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2014 Iraq conflict

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2014 Iraq conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "newname":

From Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Withnall, Adam (30 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Withnall, Adam (29 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 29 June 2014.
From Battle of Tikrit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-declares-new-islamic-state-in-middle-east-with-abu-bakr-albaghdadi-as-emir-removing-iraq-and-syria-from-its-name-9571374.html
From Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014): Iraq crisis: Isis declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East - Middle East - World - The Independent

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing dates – a suggestion

It looks like the current version of the timeline/chronology of this article only goes through 22 August 2014: nothing for 23 August-28 August (today). That would probably be the next thing to work on – closing that "hole" in the timeline. --IJBall (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1RR per 24 hours and other sanctions

Please read the notice at the top about the Syrian Civil War sanctions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regional war

This was should not be detached from the Syrian Civil War, in fact in 2014 this has become a regional war. --118.69.69.239 (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree to some extent with that, but the problem is the name. What the heck to call it?Ericl (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change

Should this be called Second Iraq War or Iraqi Civil War instead of its current title? Helliko (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think that Second Iraq War would be the most appropriate at this point, given the international nature of the conflict. Juno (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO! This is something like the FIFTH Iraqi war since 1979. There was the Iran/Iraq war, the Gulf War, Operation Desert Fox, and the 2003 mess. There was also the post-war genocide of the Marsh Arabs, and a Kurdish Civil War or two. Remember, World War I wasn't called that until the 1920s.Ericl (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WW1 was not called like that until 1939...--Reader1987 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All titles you proposed are OR (original research) unless you have source to back up the title. Read WP: Commonname for guidance. EkoGraf (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content restored to article – rationale

For discussion and rationale for why content was restored to this article, please see this discussion at the Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) Talk page. --IJBall (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that an editor moved it to "Iraqi conflict". I reverted this move, as the conflict isn't "Iraqi" in any real sense. Various people that don't consider themselves Iraqi are fighting in this war. Compare to 2014 Gaza conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Various people fighting in the Syrian Civil War don't consider themselves "Syrians" either. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd prefer broadening the scope of this article to include the fighting between the Syrian government and ISIS. I don't really like this title to be honest and I prefer 2013–14 Islamic State offensive in Iraq and Syria, but more work has to be done here first. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that's not a WP:NDESC title, it is a proper name used in the media. This title here is a WP:NDESC title, and given that, I believe we need to be careful in our choice of words. "Iraq" makes more sense in this instance. As far as expansion of scope, I'd start by getting this article up and running before going down that route. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fitz up there, and we should change the title of "Arab Winter" to his suggestion immediately. the problem is is that no one in the media has agreed on the name either, although everyone agrees to what is going on. The media is very cautious as to what they call a war nowadays. They denied the Kargil War of 1999 was a war for years. We have to recognize the fact that this is a regional war somehow. Everyone agrees that World War II in Europe began on Sept. 1, 1939, but it seems few agree when it began in the Pacific; 1931?, 1937? 1941? It's a puzzlement.

But getting back to brass tacks. What started out on Dec.30,2013 was the start of something completely different than what was going on before. This article is a start in the right directionEricl (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened on December 30 is not something different from what happened before. Its the same insurgency, just a new phase. But however you try to spin it its the same conflict. The current title Timeline... is fine just as it is. EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT an insurgency

Insurgencies are small This is an international multifront war. The pope has called it World War III.Ericl (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Here's a quote from a recent Wall Street Journal artilce: "Some Sunni tribal leaders had supported Islamic State's insurgency". [1] WWIII? Laughable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Let's take a look at the definition of the term insurgency, shall we?
An insurgency is an armed 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.Oxford English Dictionary second edition 1989 "insurgent B. n. One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent."
ISIS/L is considered a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War, and is considered a belligerent in the current situation, which is taking place in two countries (three, if you include the Battle of Arsal in Lebanon). Therefore it is NOT an insurgency, but a REGIONAL war, which as we type is threatening to expand exponentially.Ericl (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Future. You can quote the dictionary but most of what you said is unsourced and original research in my opinion, which is prohibited per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is very clear on this issue. Common name rules, and the common name per most reliable sources for the events in Iraq is an insurgency whether we like it or not. Until you find a source that explicetly says the insurgency ended it will remain an insurgency. That's how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me were it was called an insurgency after June? The reason it was called that prior to that, if at all was that no one had noticed what was going on in that poor country prior to the blitzkreig?Ericl (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A source? Your own source that you left on my talk page still calls those opposing the Iraqi government insurgents. And you seem to have not noticed or ignored Future's source that he provided to you just a couple of paragraphs up. EkoGraf (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of a title

The present title is not that good, but neither is the propose "timeline" title. Proper discussion needs to happen here, before any further controversial moves. I've reverted the bold page moves by Future Trillionaire per WP:BRD. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would figure something like 2014 insurgency crisis in Iraq might be better, as it does not imply a whole new conflict, merely a new phase. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Under WP:BRD, I reverted a bold page move to a title that was not agreed to by consensus and which significantly changed the scope of the article. You're supposed to discuss and gain consensus, not move it back. This is just utterly absurd. Continue to do what stupidity wills, you won't have me to impede you. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been "Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014)" for over 3 weeks. And nobody has opposed it. You are the one making the bold move trying to change it to "2014 Iraq conflict". Also, I don't see how having "timeline" in the article changes the scope of the article. The article started out as a timeline of 2014 events in Iraq, and right now it still is. The structure and scope has not changed one bit.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Future, nobody has up until now opposed to the title timeline, while the conflict title is misrepresenting the situation in the way that it implies it is a separate conflict from the long-lasting insurgency, while no sources have been provided that the insurgency ended and the conflict began. EkoGraf (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]