Wikipedia

Talk:Peshmerga

Latest comment: 3 months ago by 80.114.181.230 in topic Inaccuracies regarding the legal status of Peshmerga
Learn more about this page

Small Arms

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The BBC recently broadcast footage of peshmerga snipers battling ISIS. Two snipers were shown. One had an L96 or an Artic warfare and an AS50. Both made by Accuracy International. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article also fails to mention that Britain has supplied M2 brownings and ammo. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

On a similar subject, the given images as cites for the use of M16A2s all show M16A4s. I'm unsure what the 2007 DoD article claims since I can't navigate to it to read it, but since photographic evidence shows A4s rather than A2s, I'm going to change that. Spartan198 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, the image given for the SPAS-12 isn't a SPAS-12, it looks like a Hawk 97-2 to me. Spartan198 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Expanding on this, I've stumbled into a cache of uploaded video from one of the Peshmerga fighters on the ground. Featured in it is a Zastava M93 identified by name by the individual firing it. Does this count as a viable source seeing we have clear video proof of it in use in Syria by peshmerga forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyggalypuff (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

History bit removed to new article?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone have a problem with this? It does not seem right that the article of the millitary force itself is made up of many pages of history. This should be in an article by itself, with a short version on the millitary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozad655 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not have a problem with that, if you would summarize each section of the history, like it is in the article of United States Army. So we do not completely loose the history of Peshmerga article. Greetings --Moplayer (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

We have not lost the history of Peshmerga. The deleted bits have been moved to a main article, and a have been replaced with a summary in this article no longer than 10-15 lines (Note Republic of Korea Armed Forces). The equivalent of the Peshmerga forces is not the United States Army, but United States Armed Forces. The United States Army is a branch of United States Armed Forces. Peshmerga is not a branch of any other force, it is the main force with branches such as Asyaish and Zeravani. Please redo your edit as the material has not been lost, but simply moved since this page should not be dominated by history. The history section is large enough to have its own article which I have created and pasted into without any editing. no editwar

Peshmega minstry brigades

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Like the article of Rudaw this source also mentions that 14 brigades are united under the Peshmerga ministry not 12 or 15 like it is written in this wiki article. http://carnegie-mec.org/2015/12/16/kurdistan-s-political-armies-challenge-of-unifying-peshmerga-forces-pub-61917 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaranKurd (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Peshmerga Have 30 Unified Brigades not 14, and the number of Personnel is 60,000 not 43,000, My source is the US foreign Policy research institute https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/10/peshmerga-reforms-navigating-challenges-forging-unity/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coylaxy (talk • contribs) 17:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Number of Peshmerga

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The source that was put here for the number of Peshmerga fighters have its number from Rudaw, but it misinterpreted the numbers. The number of Peshmerga is by around 200 thousand and not 241,000. Some special units and police units were listed as Peshmerga but they are not.

- Rojava Peshmarga is part of Zeravani forces and Zerevani force is already listed as a unit.

- Anti-terror force, KDP Asayish, The Black Force, Dizha Tiror, PUK Asayish are no part of Peshmerga. These are special anti terror, police or security forces but not Peshmerga.

- Hezakanî Gulan and Hezakanî Barzan is part of KDP 80 force unit. And Two presidential brigades and Hezekanî Kosrat Rasul is part of PUK force 70 unit.

Some units were listed as whole and then smaller units that are part of them were listed again so you get a higher number. Police and special forces not part of Peshmerga also increased the number. Don't be misled by the titel of the article this number does not include Zeravani which are Peshmerga and listed at the end of the article. http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/03042017 --BaranKurd (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Peshmerga. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Article in need of a review/major editting.

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This page has gone through some major iterations in the last two years, most related to actual events in the Syrian and Iraqi Wars. Unfortunately the quality has gone downhill since then. On top of that the article was separated some time ago and a great deal of information was moved to History of Peshmerga. Now instead of one quality article we have two terrible articles. There are some major problems with both articles as I see it:

  • The way it is written now makes is sound like the Peshmerga is still at war with ISIS. The article should be written in a way that is independent of current events. We don't want to rewrite the whole article everytime there is a skirmish with the Peshmerga.
  • It is unclear in literature whether the term Peshmerga is used only by Iraqi Kurds or some Kurds or all Kurds. For example are PKK members considered Peshmarga? How about YPG/SDF/PJAK?
  • The article tries to present the Peshmerga (whether in Iraq or somewhere else) as a mechanized army of some sort with a unified command structure. The reality in Iraq is that the Peshmarga is a more loose militia commanded by local community leaders reporting to political parties. Therefore information like Size, Brigades and equipment are almost always inaccurate.
  • The tables/lists under Equipment are as good as useless information and probably out of date. That is if it's even complete. Most have a Flckr image as a source.

My proposal is this:

  • Rewrite parts of the article based on more academic sources with a focus on providing general information about the Peshmerga as opposed to current events. I.e. in a more neutral tone and one that is independent of recent events.
  • Specifically state whether the term Peshmerga is used by other Kurds(see above) or at least mention that this is unclear.
  • Stop trying to shoehorn and present the Peshmerga as a mechanized army i.e. remove information about size, specific structure and equipment since these are almost constantly changing.
  • Remove the tables/lists under Equipment as they don't provide any added value to the article.
  • I'd also like to remove some images and add others: Less soldiers posing for a camera and more soldiers doing what soldiers do.

I'd like to hear what other people think. I will start to edit the article to hopefully improve its quality over time. Any help/input is welcome. ~ Zirguezi 16:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zirguezi I think it's good to include current events (to a certain extent) like in the case of the war against ISIS, it would only have to be updated a couple times in the past few years to be accurate. I'm not 100% sure if peshmerga is used by other kurdish groups, but the only group that is officially named Peshmerga is in Iraqi Kurdistan. I think the size estimates are helpful as long as they are sourced, even if they aren't perfect. The NDF for example. Peshmerga is tough to place as either a militia or army because it's not purely volunteer nor exclusively professional fighters. I think part of the reason it's presented as a unified group is because of the difficulty finding info for specific parts of the Peshmerga. I think because all Peshmerga groups fight for the KRG it makes sense include them as one group, but explaining that they are not perfectly unified (which is how the article is written currently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokerplayer513 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have rewritten major parts of the article. I'd encourage anyone patrolling or viewing this article look at it and provide me with feedback. I intend to expand Role of women section significantly. After that I will attempt to expand and reorganize History of Peshmerga but due limited reliable sources I might leave that to others. ~ Zirguezi 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Formatting concerns

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Currently "Peshmerga" is always italicized and is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. I'm not sure why it's italicized, but possibly because it's a foreign word. That doesn't seem right and I'm going to edit that. As for capitalization, I'm not sure when it should be capitalized. I think it is capitalized when referring to it as a group (the Peshmerga is a militia) and it's not when referring to individuals (they are peshmerga), but I'm not 100% sure so I'm not making those changes. If anyone knows the answer they should make those edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokerplayer513 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Most of this article is based on the article by Lortz who does italicize but does not use capital letters. I'm open to either way ~ Zirguezi 14:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Removal of equipment tables

edit

In the context of Talk:Peshmerga#Article_in_need_of_a_review/major_editting. no objections were raised. As discussed the section has been completely removed as (1) it added very little to the article (2) there were very little reliable sources and (3) the list every changing and unverifiable.

"Valentine"

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone(possibly plural) - edited in some quotes from a book published in 2018 arguing about certain facts. Can someone confirm these? Doesn't seem very professional to sole-source claims being made on the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.168.138 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Return of previously removed section: Equipment

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At the start of 2018 this article had a major rewrite to improve its quality. See the discussion preceding this rewrite at Talk:Peshmerga#Article_in_need_of_a_review/major_editting. and Talk:Peshmerga#Removal_of_equipment_tables. To summarize: the article was written as a news/blog article with very little reliable sources and wild estimates for what later appeared to be an ever changing army size/structure. Also included were several section that in my opinion added nothing to the article and simply don't belong on an encyclopedia. These sections are now making a comeback as users (with good intentions) are adding these back in. The last time this was brought up there was barely any discussion and thus no objections to the removal of these sections. I have not changed my view and still think that these sections should be omitted from the article. However I would like to have a discussion about this to see what other users think. In particular I think:

1. The list of equipment per WP:NOTCATALOG does not belong on an encyclopedia. That's even before we start questioning the sources given (often times vague pictures of random people posing on Flckr with no way to verify). Then there's the issue of as stated in the section itself that the peshmerga is "allowed them to buy their own weapons" which means pretty much every weapon in the world could be listed here. In my opinion this section adds nothing of value to the article and lowers its quality by turning half the article into a huge (and unreliable) list of equipment and firearms.

2. Everybody in Iraqi Kurdistan can buy a military uniform and a rifle and start calling themselves peshmerga. This is simply a consequence of the militia composition of the peshmerga as stated in the article. In fact the Commons category for peshmerga is full of people posing exactly as described and looks like something out of a Bollywood set. However as I noted the last time, the quality of this article would improve if we "remove some images and add others: Less soldiers posing for a camera and more soldiers doing what soldiers do." Therefore we should be more careful about the pictures we feature here. Images like these : 1, 2, 3 are very much staged and should be in my opinion be avoided while images like these 1, 2, 3 are not staged and show a more accurate and real image of what peshmerga soldiers do.

I would like to know what others think about this and will be notifying several users who have recently edited this article to join this discussion. ~ Zirguezi 22:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You should go ahead and make the changes regarding the equipment section on the basis of WP:NOTCATALOG and the pictures on authenticity. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Your argument flies in the face common article usage as just about every military and paramilitary forces article has some type of list of its equipment. Even though, to you, it violates WP:NOTCATALOG these other articles indicate a common use. Sooo...if you want to do it to this article then you need to edit every singe of the THOUSANDS of articles that contain them. 100.11.77.202 (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

___

Two weeks have passed and no opposition has been voiced to this. I was hoping to get a lively discussion but it looks like those watching/following this article don't have anything to contribute to this subject or don't mind either way. Therefore I will be removing the equipment section. ~ Zirguezi 22:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Voices have been raised in opposition but you chose to ignore them.Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for the late reply. Can you elaborate? What did I exactly ignore? ~ Zirguezi 21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Return of previously removed information.

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems like over time information that was previously removed (see Talk:Peshmerga#Article_in_need_of_a_review/major_editting.) has been added back again (with good intentions). Unfortunately, the problems we had when we removed the information has not been addressed therefore, we are running into the same problems. One of these was the return of the Equipment section which was removed, added back again and then finally removed again (See Talk:Peshmerga#Return_of_previously_removed_section:_Equipment).

Now another problem is returning, namely that of shoehorning the "army" composition back into the article despite all sources clearly stating that the Peshmerga is in fact not an army but a militia. This is problematic as the Peshmerga is obviously lacking the structured command of an army (according to sources).

For example, the army headquarters is currently stated to be in Erbil. No source is given for this, so I’m assuming that this is a reference to the Ministry of Peshmerga which is located in Erbil. However, this only applies to the “Regional Guard Brigades” (see table Peshmerga#Structure). The major of the Peshmerga does not take orders from the ministry but rather from their own party affiliated commanders as is stated in multiple sources. Therefore, it is impossible to state where the Peshmerga headquarters is located as Peshmerga is comprised of several militias.

This is one of the examples of information that is unsourced, misrepresenting reality and in some cases directly contradicting sources information.

I hope other will join me in monitoring this article and keep its quality high with sourced information. ~ Zirguezi 12:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Militia vs Army

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see:

Talk:Peshmerga#Article_in_need_of_a_review/major_editting.

Talk:Peshmerga#Return of previously removed section: Equipment

Talk:Peshmerga#Return_of_previously_removed_information.

There seems to be a minor edit conflict going on about several infobox fields. Conscription, Active personnel, Military age and Leadership seems to be edited by whoever comes along. Therefore I would like to have a discussion to settle this.

As stated before the peshmerga in not an army in the sense that the US Army is with a unified command structure, policy and interest. The article and sources state that it is in fact a militia made of several groups with different leaders and policies that call themselves peshmerga. Therefore any attempt to shoehorn the peshmerga into an army composition is going to be misleading as none of the mentioned attributes apply to all. For example: the leadership is currently stated to be Shorish Ismail(unsourced) who I assume is a member of the KDP but the article itself mentions that at least half the Peshmerga takes orders from the PUK.

I suggest that we either leave the mentioned fields blank or change it to disputed with a note to a section in the article where it is explained. I would also suggest we stop to shoehorn attributes meant for an army to what is obviously a militia. ~ Zirguezi 14:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

current and historical events

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please see:

Talk:Peshmerga#Article_in_need_of_a_review/major_editting.

Talk:Peshmerga#Return of previously removed section: Equipment

Talk:Peshmerga#Return_of_previously_removed_information. There seems to be a deviation from what was previously agreed on what this article should and should not be. I don't expect everyone to read all the discussion that have taken place which are almost always in good faith. Therefore I would like to remind everyone that previously it was agreed that "[this article should be] based on more academic sources with a focus on providing general information about the Peshmerga as opposed to current events. I.e. in a more neutral tone and one that is independent of recent events."

In that regard I would like to suggest that:

Please share your thoughts on this.

~ Zirguezi 15:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's almost seven weeks later and discussion has taken place and no objection has been raised. I will implement the changes discussed above ~ Zirguezi 21:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 13:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Israel and Iraq

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There are no diplomatic relations between Israel and Iraq, and the Peshmerga is one of the Iraqi forces and has nothing to do with helping Israel. Can this be fixed? Xumas (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It should stay as it is well-sourced. Semsûrî (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello. I have checked the original source and the only reference I can find is: "AVAK transported weapon mainly prepared from Europe to Iraqi Kurdistan. In addition to facilitating Israeli assistance in providing food for the Kurds". This confirms that Israel was somehow involved in providing humanitarian supplies to the Kurds (i.e. the civilian population) and not as the article currently implies supplies specifically to the Peshmerga. Therefore I would like to propose that Israel either be removed from the Foreign suppliers List or a footnote should be added to clarify this. Please let me know what you think ~ Zirguezi 22:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's a lot more about Israeli assistance at Israel–Kurdistan Region relations#Israeli–Kurdish relations (1958–1979). Semsûrî (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hello, i have edited this page many times, and i was the one that actually made the "inventory" Section of the Page, i wish to work more on the Inventory section as i gain more sources for the weapons, and i hope that i have made my edit's look professional enough to be included access. Coylaxy (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. To obtain the extended-confirmed right, you will need to reach 500 edits. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for Adding HRW Perspective on Human Rights Concerns

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose adding a new section to the Perhmerga pagededicated to the views and findings of Human Rights Watch(HRW) regarding the human rights situation in the region.

Currently, the page may lack a comprehensive view of thisimportant aspect. Including a dedicated section for HRW'sperspective would offer a more balanced and informativeunderstanding of the complexities surrounding human rightsissues in Perhmerga.

Proposed Revision:

Benefits:

  • Increased neutrality and objectivity
  • Enhanced comprehensiveness and understandingof the region's complexities
  • Improved credibility and reliability of the page

Discussion Points:

  • Appropriate title for the new section
  • Specific HRW reports to focus on
  • Maintaining a neutral point of view while presenting HRW'sfindings
  • Including any counter-arguments or differingperspectives

I believe this addition would significantly improve the page'squality and provide readers with a more nuancedunderstanding of the human rights situation in Perhmerga.

I welcome your feedback and suggestions on this proposal.

Thank you for your time and consideration. NICTON t (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

please update the wars in peshmerga

edit
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the american air base attacks concluded earlier this year. Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2024

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi I need to add battle of Qahrawa 2001:8003:3F18:1C00:4530:C8F4:AA4D:D621 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The second sentence of the article, which goes as follows: "According to the Constitution of Iraq, the Peshmerga and their security subsidiaries are solely responsible for the security of Kurdistan Region, chiefly due to the fact that the Iraqi Armed Forces are forbidden to enter Iraqi Kurdistan." Uses various newspapers as its "source" which do not claim anything remotely to Iraqi forces not being "allowed" into Kurdistan. In fact source 28 (The Time article) includes an interview with an Iraqi soldier in Kurdistan. But more importantly, and where this really goes from a matter of personal view to an actual factual inaccuracy: the first source given (source 26) is the 2005 Iraqi Constitution. It is in reading this very Constitution that the idea of Iraqi forces legally not being allowed into Kurdistan due to "the constitution not allowing it" falls apart. Art. 24 states in no uncertain terms that "The State shall guarantee freedom of movement of Iraqi manpower, goods, and capital between regions and governorates, and this shall be regulated by law." Establishing the right of the federal government to regulate the movement of "Iraqi manpower" to Kurdistan, which is defined as being a region of Iraq per Art. 117 (first). Now if this was the only Article concerning this, there might have been room for interpretation since the Kurdish regional government can be considered part of "The State" but the relationship between the federal government and Kurdistan is again explicitly underlined in Art. 110 which defines; "Formulating and executing national security policy, including establishing and managing armed forces to secure the protection and guarantee the security of Iraq's borders and to defend Iraq." as being under exclusive authority of the federal government. Regional and shared responsibilities are underlined in Art. 114 and make no mention of any military rights that regions/Kurdistan are/is claimed to have by this article. Peshmerga is de facto the sole armed group active in Kurdistan, but claims that Peshmerga is de jure permitted to exercise its claims as Kurdistan's "standing military" through the Constitution are factually incorrect. Therefore, it is my recommendation for this article to be amended to better reflect the rift between the legal facts (The Iraqi Army is the sole legitimate exerciser of the right to military defend Iraq's borders and interests) and the "boots on the ground" reality (Peshmerga functions as a de facto military within the Kurdistan region despite the Constitution, not because of it). 80.114.181.230 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peshmerga&oldid=1240767524"