Talk:Second Battle of Tikrit

Sunni fighters

don't forget to add the sunni arab tribes, they are there with thousands of them.

Casualty figures and strength figures

Any changes to these must provide clear and credible citations otherwise they will be removed!

Protected edit request on 6 March 2015

The strength figures in the table do not reflect the cited sources accurately because both A-Jazeera & Al-Araby give numbers of 20,000 instead of 30,000. I think we should provide accurate information on the figures as reported by credible and respected sources. Thank you. Parsa1993 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

First off, the vast majority of sources indicate 30,000 Iraqi Army forces. Even then, you have to factor the Allied Sunni Tribes, who would add at least 1,000 fighters (I heard some editors say up to 5,000, but I haven't looked into that yet). Either way, it's obvious that the addition of Sunni fighters would add thousands to the minimum estimate, and given the average of the figures, that would send the totals of all the involved fighter beyond 30,000, so given the various sources, I think that 30,000 is a fair compromise. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, almost all of those sources do NOT specify the composition of the reported figure and give the 20,000 or 30,000 number as a total of allied fighters which are taking part in the offensive. Also Al-jazeera & Al-Araby are two very credible and well-respected new sources which give the figure of 20,000 along with a host of others although the majority do give 30,000. The best compromise in my opinion would be to give 20,000-30,000 in order to accurately reflect the sources. Thank you and please let me know what you think.

That's only one source so far that includes the Sunni fighters in the 20,000 estimate. But one source is not enough to prove anything when you have many more (reputable) sources giving differing amounts. Also, the sources quoting 30,000 got their sources directly from Iraqi officials, and you can't really get any more official than Government sources. And please remember to sign your post. It's not that hard. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have provided numerous credible sources down below in the talk page, which give the 20,000 estimate and also the Reuters article explicitly mentions that the numbers of allied sunni fighters is included in the overall count. Thank you.

Parsa1993 (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.96.154 (talk)

And as for official government official, the Al-Araby source gets their number from a commanding general in the offensive, "Major General Jaber al-Waeli from the Salahuddin province military operations command, confirmed that approximately 20,000 fighters were preparing to launch the offensive in Tikrit, supported by the forces of the international coalition. He said the forces deployed in the offensive were 10 army battalions, 10 police battalions, and 12 Popular Mobilisation groups, each comprising around 300 men."

I honestly thank you for your contributions and seriously think that the most honest and balanced figure we can provide in the table is "20,000-30,000". Thanks.Parsa1993 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2015

My argument was (in case that I perhaps did not clarify sufficiently), to provide the figure of 20,000-30,000 in the table. The lower estimate comes from very reputable sources (which includes Martin Dempsey, chairmen of the joint chief's of staff in the last three links):

Also despite another editors claims to the contrary, the Reuters source does explicitly clarify that the allied Sunni fighters are included in the overall force of 20,000. Thank you very much. Parsa1993 (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems of vandalism and misinformation

1. Adding the US coalition in the belligerents table: There were repeated edits which did this and even provided a citation to a news report which did not report anything of the sort. There are numerous news reports which unambiguously talk about how the US-led coalition is not involved.

2. Strength and casualty figures: Unfortunately repeated edits were made with no citations whatsoever about the strength of ISIS, putting it at a few hundred or 1000 which is completely unsubstantiated. Both RT and Al-Arabiya report the figure of 13,000 ISIS fighters in the battle. For the strength of the allied forces however I refer everyone to the above discussion with (talk) in which the only rational course of action resulted in accepting the figures "20,000-30,000". As for casualties they have also been subject to persistent vandalism with additions being made with no sources provided. The 87 killed come from an addition of 3 separate casualty figures which were explained in the NOTES section, before this section was vandalised and deleted.

I think it's best if the article remains under semi-protected so that anonymous users cannot edit, and vandalisers are blocked.

Protected edit request on 6 March 2015

I wish to fix bare refs.--Catlemur (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Catlemur (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk)Iraq have just captured the Door city which couple of kilo-meters away from the city center of Tikrit.

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraq4media (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 March 2015

Please add Category:Military operations involving Quds Force to article. Pahlevun (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 March 2015

The casualty section of the table is in dire need of an update as well as a footnote section that was deleted/vandalised which explained the numbers provided in a transparent and accurate way. the ISIS casualty section in the table should read as 237 killed & 47 wounded http://basnews.com/en/news/2015/03/07/iraqi-forces-and-airstrikes-kill-150-militants-in-southern-tikrit/ http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2015/03/06/grand-ayatollah-wants-sunnis-armed-143-killed-in-iraq/ Thanks Parsa1993 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Al-Dour

ISIS lost control of this town--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Islamic State crisis: Iraqi army drives IS from key town

Protected edit request on 8 March 2015

The starting date of the offensive is wrong in the table (it gives 30 December as the beginning date), This should be changed to 2 March 2015 according to numerous news reports including the two following http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/uk-mideast-crisis-iraq-idUKKBN0M21NI20150307 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/08-Mar-2015/top-us-general-optimistic-about-outcome-of-tikrit-battle Parsa1993 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Additional information needed. Currently the sentence reads " Iraqi forces engaged in offensive operations to fully encircle and subsequently retake the city, starting on 1 March 2015, after a few months of a stalemated siege since 30 December 2014." It seems to me that changing 30 December 2014 to 2 March 2015 doesn't make any sense. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 March 2015

The date section of the table as well as the sentence in the introduction mistakenly put the start of the offensive on the 30 December (un-sourced) and 1st March (my own error actually, when I created the page and wrote the introduction I did not have any sources and guessed the date), but now there are two credible sources which give the 2 March (Monday) 2015 as the starting date of the offensive. They are the following http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/08-Mar-2015/top-us-general-optimistic-about-outcome-of-tikrit-battle http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/uk-mideast-crisis-iraq-idUKKBN0M21NI20150307 Thank you very much, and sorry for my earlier mistake (un-sourced date). Hopefully now we can provide the accurate and cited launch date of the operation throughout the article (text & table). Parsa1993 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The city had been under one, long continuous siege by Iraqi forces since late December 2014. Sending reinforcements or going on the offensive does not change the fact the the battle has been raging for over 2 months. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about more than the recent operation. It's about the latest continuous period of conflict that has engulfed the city since December 2014. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but your source http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/08-Mar-2015/top-us-general-optimistic-about-outcome-of-tikrit-battle states that the battle was already in progress. Yes, the counterattack began on March 2, but the battle itself had raging long before that. So it's unresonable to change the starting date. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I created this article page to cover the offensive that the news outlets and media are covering and that is why I gave the starting period as march. Unfortunately I think you are motivated by POV pushing to wind back the clock to a time where you can insert the US-led coalition into the table as you did twice using a citation which did not back your claim. This is NOT about the preparatory phases of the operation or the inter period between the first and second battles of Tikrit. This is an article about the allied offensive which the allied officials themselves claim started a week ago. If you want to create an article about the inter-period then I could not be more supportive of you efforts to do so and strongly suggest this course of action. Thank you very much.

Parsa1993 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, for your information, there has been no "siege" for the past few months, in fact the allied forces are still attempting to complete the encirclement by taking al-Alam in the north east (I refer you to the diagram which I have uploaded) and only then would a siege be imposed on the Tikrit. Please look up the article: Siege to further familiarise yourself with the meaning. Thanks.

Parsa1993 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Parsa1993 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Parsa1993. This article is about the battle/offensive that started on 2 March as stated by the sources. Everything that happened before that, as per the sources, was simply preparations for this battle/offensive. Also, the most recent sources as of today state the Iraqi government forces are still attempting to finish the surrounding/besieging/encirclement of Tikrit before they launch an attack on the city itself. And even if an attack was repelled back in December as you say in the unsourced sentence, that does not mean its one and the same battle, three months have passed since than. Also, the source you cited [2] LightandDark200 for which you said indicates the battle was already in progress in fact makes no mention of a battle taking place for the city before the current offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 March 2015

There is a typo next to "Quds force" in the table, (it is Quds force <). Parsa1993 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 March 2015

I have updated the battle diagram to more accurately portray events on the ground. The one that I initially uploaded when creating the page is rather incomplete) 1. I have added the crucial city of al-Dour in the south 2. added the allied assault on Abu-Ajeel in the east 3. added the new attack direction on al-Alam from the north-east 4. provided distinct colour to ISIS occupied territory for easier differentiation. Thank you.

The military situation in early March

Parsa1993 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 March 2015

I would ask that the date of the start of the battle in the infobox be changed to 2 March 2015 as multiple sources [3][4][5][6] indicate that is the start date of the offensive to capture the city. As per the sources themselves, everything that happened during the previous three months were simply preparations for the current offensive. And the one and only sentence about the town being besieged back in December and an attack being repelled at that time is UNSOURCED. And even if it did happen it does not mean its all the same battle, again to the contrary it indicates that at the time it was one of the 2 or 3 separate battles that broke out in 2014. Thus I would also ask that sentence be removed. In addition, in the current title of the article Second Battle of Tikrit (2014–15) (2014–15) is redundant. We already have an article about the first battle and it does not have a year in its title. EkoGraf (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I am in complete agreement with you in this regard an the multitude of sources you have provided leave no doubt as to the validity of your proposals.Parsa1993 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 March 2015

A gentleman asked for citations to be provided for description/information for the maps in the article in the image section of the table: "Military diagram illustrating the situation after the launch of the offensive against ISIL, in early March 2015" Parsa1993 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I think we should remove the full protection and replace it with semi-protection. No one can edit this article, which is a problem since it is ongoing and it is becoming outdated.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree.Parsa1993 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Iraqi army has made important gains, and today they entered Tikrit. This is all important information, and it can't be added becasue of the full protection.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31822701

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2015

This group should be added to the Shi'ite private miltia section of the table: Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada with the following sources mentioning their involvement. http://www.eurasiareview.com/20012015-death-sentence-inflame-sectarian-tensions-across-middle-east-analysis/ and http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/03/in-pictures-shiite-militias-operating-near-tikrit.php Parsa1993 (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove full protection

For goodness sake guys, I say we put this on semi-protection because we are really missing out important information.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi troops recaptured most part city of Tikrit

About 75% of the besieged Iraqi city of Tikrit is now back under government control.CNN Hanibal911 (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Some one should request this article be semi-protected

Many strength and casualty figures have been repeatedly vandalized by mostly anonymous editors. I don't know how to make the semi-protection request so if you know how please do.

Orphaned references in Second Battle of Tikrit (March 2015)

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 Second Battle of Tikrit (March 2015)'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 "presstv.ir":

• From Salahuddin campaign (2014–15): "PressTV-Iraqi army, volunteers enter Tikrit". Retrieved 12 March 2015.
• From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: "Russia urges Iran's participation in anti-ISIL battle". presstv.ir/. Press TV. 28 September 2014. Retrieved 21 November 2014.
• From Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present): http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/10/401145/Iraqi-army-volunteers-enter-Tikrit

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⚡ 13:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

COB Speicher

So far I know COB Speicher has never been in the hands of ISIS. So it was not recaptured. -- Korkwand (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Second Battle of Tikrit (March 2015)

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 Second Battle of Tikrit (March 2015)'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 "newsweek.com":

• From Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014): http://www.newsweek.com/britain-belgium-and-denmark-join-global-coalition-against-islamic-state-273570
• From Timeline of events related to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: "Town Falls to Islamic State in Iraq's Anbar Province". Newsweek. Reuters. 4 October 2014.
• From Salahuddin campaign (2014–15): http://www.newsweek.com/isis-escalate-ramadi-attacks-iraqi-forces-induce-tikrit-losses-312945

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⚡ 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Casualties and loses

I think we need a section entitled "Casualties and loses". What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Us air force

According to the infobox, US air force is alleged to be participating the operation but no ref is presented, hence I removed it from the infobox. If any reliable source exists for that please undo my edit and cite the ref. Mhhossein (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. In fact, most reliable sources point to the issue of US forces not participating in the battle after the Iraqi government specifically told them they are not needed. EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is some information on allied fly-overs here Tkuvho (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. involvement

I have added the U.S. to the infobox, not really because they are flying surveillance flights over Tikrit in order to provide intelligence but the real reason being that there were also some news reports talking of an "imminent" engagement of U.S. forces at the request of the Iraqi government. If these reports turn out to be inaccurate I think the best thing to do is to remove the U.S. from the infobox as they would not be providing combat support but merely providing intelligence to the allies which numerous nations already do. In either case, I understand if anyone wants to remove the U.S. right now, at least until the situation becomes clearer.Parsa1993 (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian and ABC estimated the strength of ISl in Tikrit around 400 men while the casualties of their opponents estimated between 4000 to 6000 killed. However, the Iranian force are the heavy one. In accordance to different sources there are 30000 Iranian men on the ground in support to Iraqi Shiite forces. In total there are more than 50000 troops engaged in this battle, of course with the support of US and the allies through air strike on ISL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.8.249 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Coalition war crimes

United States planes used vacuum bombs, thermobaric weapons, cluster bombs and White phosphurus from their warplanes Shia militia engaged in looting, burning property and extrajudicial executions this is an important section to have, wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced site and tell the facts, no matter how distasteful the Americans find it.

The Coalition bombing of ISIL targets hardly amounts to war crimes. And if you are referring to the 225 civilians casualties caused by Coalition airstrikes, I've got some news for you: all wars come with a cost. Civilian casualties are a norm in every single conflict. Get used to it; because this is the harsh reality. Bombing doesn't qualify as war crimes, only serious, intentional acts of malice towards the populance and POW count as "war crimes." And so far, the US-led Coalition hasn't done any of that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No, using specific weapons like white phosohurus and cluster bombs are war crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The US isn't using cluster bombs except in non-civilian combat zones. Also, the US doesn't use gas attacks in Iraq; you must be confusing the gas attacks with the Syrian Government's usage of it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Non civilian combat zones is a very vague term 83 countries have banned cluster bombs, they are at the least highly controversial and their use is significant White phosphurus is illegal when used as a weapon against personnel and the US has used in many times before in Iraq, not just recently in tikrit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Only Bashar al-Assad's Syrian Government regime is using barrel bombs in combat. Get your facts straight. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Barrel bombs weren't mentioned above by me, but as you mention it, yes the iraqi army are using barrel bombs, they have dropped them on fallujah for example Sorry that your govt has so destroyed your mind with propaganda you actually think the iraqi govt/shia militias are better than IS Most people don't see much difference these days, for my part the shia are worse than IS 87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Real casualty figures

There were never more than a few hundred islamic state there, and around 122 have been killed Shia militia casualties are in 7000-10000 range This is widely known as fact but is seen as pro-islamic state to correct the article and is therefore re-edited out whenevet I try to correct it Just saying :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Actually, the figures you provided are pro-ISIL propoganda. The figures in the article are correct, even if they are a little off or slightly outdated. According to the sources and other media reports, Iraq forces numbered around 30,000 at the height of the assault, and 13,000 fighters were initially present. From what I can surmise, at least 6,000 ISIL militants deserted right before the city was fully besieged on March 9, many of whom were later executed by ISIL for desertion. During the last week of the offensive, only 14,000 Iraqi forces participated in the final assault (4,000 of whom were members of the Iraqi Armed Forces), with only 1,000 ISIL militants left to defend the city center. By the time it was all over, at least 1,000+ Iraqi forces (including Shi'ite militia fighter) and 4,100+ ISIL militants were killed, although some media reports hint that the actual casualties could be around 1,500 Iraqi fatalities and 6,400+ ISIL fatalities. Since I cannot find any sources directly stating those figures (or providing numbers that would allude to those figures), I will not add those numbers into the article at present. But the figures currently present in the article are accurate enough, and were taken from reliable sources, so you need to stop trying to alter the numbers. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your figures are entirely wrong, the iranian militia shia casualties are 7000-10000 and IS are 122 casualties Like I said, if I correct it, you will change it to your pro american propaganda, but the facts are enough for me, just trying to help the wiki though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this pro-ISIL propoganda nonsense from, but that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. None of the officials sources quote these numbers anyways. You can believe all the lies ISIL spouts on the Internet, but that doesn't change the facts. The truth is, ISIL suffered a catastrophic defeat at Tikrit, while Iraqi security forces and Shi'ite militias suffered only a fraction of the losses that ISIL sustained, and that's that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

>muhhhh official sources Funny because your facts are actually wrong whereas mine are right You seem highly upset. BAQIYAH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What's funny is that you can't even read my emotions. I'm nowhere close to being upset (while you might be, on the other hand). Otherwise, I have no idea what the heck you just said. By the way, if you want to attack others, you might as well get off the site, because this isn't the place for such childish behavior. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/05042015 Since this is wikipedia and you lot love sources so much, here is one This entire page is false, and all news about tikrit is false There are still hundreds of mujahideen inside tikrit occupying entire district, the city was never taken So now you see facts and you'll understand I have no reason to be upset  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't reply here lightanddark2000 Worth reminding you IS are STILL in tikrit as of now And these casualty figures here really need to be changed as the page is very misleading to readers when it so massively understates shia casualties To sort of explain what happened to you, the shia militias were bled out for a month by a few hundred IS fighters and they took massive casualities in the thousands The Shia militias were on the point of having to withdraw because they were so hurt and so they called in U.S. airsupport in humiliation IS tactically withdrew to the qadissiyah district which they still hold and the Shia have been taking casualties ever since without being able to get them out

87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Decisive?

The "Result" part in the box is marked as "Decisive anti-ISIL victory". It was certainly important, but I don't think that the word "decisive" is quite the right word to be using--still seems a little early to judge that. Can someone explain why we're using it instead of just "Anti-ISIL victory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahwriter14 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I second this. Only when the war is over can one determine which battles are decisive and which ones are not. ISIL's capture of Ramadi is listed as a "decisive" ISIL victory, but I highly doubt its outcome decides anything. 50.5.116.238 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The ranges Given by the article

Upon close examination of the article I saw that the estimate of 1,000 was not for the total number of ISIL members fighting against the allies in this operation but the final number remaining just inside the city itself. The article gives the lower estimate of 1,000 ISIL members fighting inside the city, but gives 2,000-3,000 for the total number of fighters in and around the city. This article is about the operation to surround and retake the city and that is why the allied side is given the figure of 20,000-30,000 total since that is the estimate of numbers in the theatre of operations. If it were inside the city only then no more than a few thousand would be given. I quote directly from the article here; "A more likely estimate is that the number of IS militants in the city was approximately 2,000 to 3,000 or so and that the number was reduced to around a 1,000 as the city was surrounded." We are also following in line with other wikipedia articles where the most reliable figures are given whilst the less reliable range of numbers are discarded. Parsa1993 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Where are you quoting from? My source clearly says "When the Iraqi city of Tikrit was recaptured last April, it took 30,000 soldiers from the Iraqi army and associated Shia militias to overcome 1,000 IS fighter." This quote is very clear and should be easy to understand: when the government forces retook the city there were 30,000 in total (engaged and not engaged) and there was 1,000 IS forces in total. So now we have a few edit options: 1) we restore my edit 2) we restore my edit and include your 3,000 maximum limit. 3) we keep your edit and add in brackets that 1,000 were engaged (just as is done for the goverment side). I prefere my edit, so i will change it thus, but if you desire one of the other 3 options then i can accept that.--49.195.21.122 (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Battle of Tikrit. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150324140710/http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/Airstrikes6.html to http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/Airstrikes6.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:17, 13 July 2016 (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:

• Harakat Ahrar al Iraq.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)