Talk:US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Infobox

Any evidence that the U.S. and coalition have launched offensive military operations against Ba'ath Party loyalists and other rogue actors in Iraq as part of this campaign? If there isn't, I suggest we remove them, irrespective of whatever role they might be playing in Iraq's internal conflict. We have other pages for that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose No further editing should take place on this article until the numerous disputes regarding its existence are resolved. DocumentError (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not how it works. Per the AfD template you added: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would hope you would recognize that the aggregiousness of this case sets it apart. I maintain Oppose. DocumentError (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think this case is egregious in any way. It has issues but they can be resolved. SantiLak (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the rules somehow don't apply in this case, no. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

These issues brought here do not seem to involve the other issues being discussed. Making changes to the actively discussed portions of content would seem disruptive but making changes to other content would not. The merge request if accepted wouldn't be affected by this change. The systemic Bias issue doesn't seem to be related. Your opposition is noted but if they have a genuine basis for this change there is no reason your opposition should stop the change. Do you have a content based objection to the change, DocumentError?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to the premise of this article "American-led intervention in Iraq" so any edits which would reinforce that premise I have an issue with; that said, I think you offer valid moderation and, at this time, I withdraw my objection pending the outcome of other discussions. Thanks for offering this suggestion, Serialjoepsycho. DocumentError (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Iran flag from Infobox

Someone added the Iranian flag to the infobox for the article "American-led intervention in Iraq." Since this was not cited with RS showing that the Islamic Republic of Iran generally, or Qods Force specifically, is operating under "American leadership" I deleted it. DocumentError (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

General Cleanup Reverted

I read all the discussion and then did a general cleanup (mostly deletions) to reflect consensus and alleviate some of the concerns. DocumentError promptly reverted the entire cleanup. This is disruptive as there were a bunch of good changes that I expect even DocumentError should support based on his posts here. I restored my cleanup edit. If there is something specific someone wants added back, please discuss here first. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think DocumentError intended to delete your cleanup work, but either way, edit-warring is only going to take an unpleasant situation and make it a lot worse. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I intended to only to undo your deletion of the systemic bias tags, which have only been open for discussion for 3 6 hours. DocumentError (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If that statement is true you reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627650156 without looking at the edit or reading the summary which says (remove disruptive tags, cut PKK as not US ally, remove alphabet of other groups on ISIL side not in this intervention). And then you haul me and Kudzu1 into Edit warring notice board? Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct and I've apologized. I can apologize a second time, if you like? DocumentError (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok now that we are clear, thank-you. And thank-you for ending the 3RRs and the merge proposals. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Iranian-led intervention in Iraq

Since there appears to be no consensus for Kudzu1's renaming proposal, I'm going to go ahead and create a separate article titled "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" to cover the Iranian and Hezbollah intervention which cannot be included in this article as it's not American-led. While this is not the best possible outcome, I believe it is the best of the options available. Out of a preponderance of caution, and to avoid unnecessary future merges, I would like to solicit alternate names for this article here, if any editors believe "Iranian-led" is too limited. (I would like to move on this ASAP, however, since this is a current item in the news and a parallel article to this one is needed as quickly as possible to offer readers a holistic, non US-centric view.) Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you are doing this, than all your efforts to rename, delete, call Bias, and add other parties to the US led group in various articles can stop. The rest of us can edit accordingly. Based on this post the AfD can be closed right? Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the issue of protection evasion that birthed this article is separate and needs to be addressed regardless. DocumentError (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no protection evasion (that AfD is still running and noted though), but there is your objection to the scope of this article because you want to include Iran as a belligerent. Please stop the WP:BATTLE Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection to this article, it is now active here: Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. I am further, withdrawing the merge nomination as it appears moot. DocumentError (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is looking nice, good work. So after DocumentError started Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq, it seems he forgot to withdraw the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Semi-Protection_Evasion_.5BActive_Community_Sanctions_measures_-_Syrian_Civil_War.5D as his own actions actually circumvent edit protection on 2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS - exactly what he complains about this article American-led intervention in Iraq. Legacypac (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for your input but I don't think that's how that works. DocumentError (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And you need to withdraw the AfD too. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, however, I'd like to see what input the community registers, once a few people who are not party to this closely linked group of editors have a chance to comment. Shouldn't be an issue. DocumentError (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not linked to any group of editors. Is everyone that disagrees with your disruptive actions now not to be listened to? Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

what links here

Just FYI, this article has a few hundred links, most of which are referring to other American-led interventions in Iraq, including: 9 September 2012 Iraq attacks, Sinjar massacre, Battle of Tikrit, Musab bin Umair mosque massacre, 2013 Hawija clashes, etc. Could be pretty confusing. Since renaming this article was nixed, someone may want to go through and manually update these pages. DocumentError (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd note that Talk:2014 Conflict against ISIS (Iraq theater) redirects here. The US led effort doesn't seem to be the only effort represented in wikipedia that has an Iraqi theater.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like that was short lived move that was quickly reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Conflict_against_ISIS_(Iraq_theater)&action=history Of no import Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article appears to exist to circumvent the edit block currently on 2014 military intervention against ISIS and largely duplicates material there. I propose it be merged with the aforementioned article. Merge nom withdrawn with creation of Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. DocumentError (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion in Brief

• Support The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS contains all substantive information contained here, this article appears to exist solely to either (a) create a USA vanity article, (b) an article in which USA forces don't have to be presented in the same column as Iran and Hezbollah as with the previous article, or, (c) circumvent an edit block. A discussion that occurred at that page had wide consensus to create an Iraq-specific conflict article but not a US Iraq-specific conflict article (see: [1]) DocumentError (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – This is an acceptable spin-off article of 2014 military intervention against ISIS, and is similar in that respect to American-led intervention in Syria. The discussion about whether to create this article was going on before the full protection at 2014 military intervention against ISIS was applied. That article is inevitably going to get quite long, and it only makes sense to have two seperate articles for the two very different interventions in Syria and Iraq, with the main article becoming a summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I made this article as the majority of the community said an article for a separate part of the conflict was necessary. Not in any means did I ever use it as a way to bypass the Full protection of the parent article. If there is a similarity it is the info box which has valid information and a lot of information all on the conflict in Iraq. We need to break it down into two separate articles. One for Iraq and one for Syria. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A majority of the community - myself included - indicated an article for a separate theater of the conflict was necessary. There was never consensus to create an article on a separate theater of the conflict in which only the USA and its affiliates would be allowed mention. This article has no consensus for creation and its existence is duplicitous and gaming. DocumentError (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure consensus isn't necessary to create a required article to help slim down the parent article which is getting overflowed I played it bold, the name may change if it is really a concern.. If you really want the article removed which I believe is what you are aiming for with the WP:CSD tag on the page I created along with a proposed merge tag... I believe this article should stay, Involvement from Iran should be added as it isn't part of the coalition, but remember that Iran played a role even before U.S. involvement. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose We need two separate articles for each intervention and one for the summary. This article really was not created in order bypass the full protection and I can't really see how it is an attempt to. The similarity in the infobox is valid considering the information shared between the two articles. Also I don't know why an article on the intervention is a USA vanity article because that term has been used a lot and just because an article focuses on the US and coalition intervention, that doesn't mean it is vanity, it is just reporting how the US and coalition partners are a very large part of the intervention. Also I think a CSD tag is going a little too far. SantiLak (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was for two articles - one for each theater. The consensus was not for an article for the USA and an article for everyone else. DocumentError (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Then add Iran to this article with citations. The article isn't just the US, it has coalition partners, Iraq, Shia militias, the kurds, and humanitarian partners. SantiLak (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As you know, Iran isn't part of the U.S.-led coalition. Iran is an independent actor in the Iraq theater of the ISIS conflict. DocumentError (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: The editor sought and obtained consensus and made it clear he wanted the article to parallel American-led intervention in Syria. If DocumentError can obtain consensus to expand the scope of this article or other articles covering military efforts against the Islamic State in Iraq or Syria, then the scope can be expanded; in fact, I am supportive of doing so. In my personal judgment as an editor, I do not believe it is appropriate to attempt to block a Iraq-focused WP:SPINOFF of the parent article because of the objection DocumentError cites. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. As someone who supported creation of a theater-specific article I can tell you I NEVER supported creation of a theater specific article in which everyone other than the U.S. and its allies would be excluded. DocumentError (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that the scope of the article can be changed to include Iran. SantiLak (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. That's a good compromise. I've renamed it "2014 Conflict against ISIS (Iraq theater)" and will begin adding Qods Force into the infobox momentarily. DocumentError (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like that title (for one, why is "Conflict" capitalized; for another, why is the acronym "ISIS" used when the Wikipedia article for the group is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; for another, why is the year needed when the Islamic State didn't exist in Iraq prior to a few months ago?) and would ask you to discuss your move proposals before unilaterally making them. In the meantime, I am completely supportive of adding Iran to the infobox and article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "conflict against ISIS". That article is 2014 Iraq crisis. This article is about the American intervention in that conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can support that compromise. Unfortunately, Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014) is a mess, and a separate article should probably be broken out to focus on June and thereafter, encompassing the series of Northern Iraq offensive articles and other articles, such as this one, regarding international efforts to fight the Islamic State. Alternatively, Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) could be expanded to take in the first few months of 2014, and some construction work could be done on Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014) (possibly with the retitle you propose to 2014 Iraq crisis). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my head hurts! This is such a mess. That "timeline" used to be called 2014 Iraq conflict, and was meant to be a new over-arching article for the conflict. Someone seems to have renamed it as a "timeline", screwing the whole thing up. Restoring the old title can't hurt. Then, of course, it needs a clean-up. As far as Iraqi insurgency (2011-present), the content presently at the so-called Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014) was spun-off from that article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably best a discussion had at Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014), but a critical question for me is whether the Islamic State conflict can be properly stated to be part of the Iraqi insurgency, or whether that's WP:SYNTH. I think there is clearly a WP:NOTABILITY basis for having a separate article to cover the Islamic State conflict, but I'm not sure whether it should properly be built out of 2014 Iraq crisis or 2014 military intervention against ISIS. The latter doesn't cover the months before U.S. airstrikes and Iranian Quds Force operations began, but from early August going forward, there would be considerable overlap. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• comment I see this as a Redundant content fork of 2014 military intervention against ISIS. I say this because it does little if anything to expand upon the Iraqi side of this Military intervention. It's also a little US Centric. I would vote in support of this merge however this article was only created yesterday. It's premature to call for a merge when in a few days these issues might be addressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the existence of this article will likely require the creation of an additionally unnecessary parallel article "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" to cover the Iranian and Hezbollah intervention that are not being American led. This is why many editors, in a parallel discussion at the main article, supported creating a neutral POV theater-specific article to cover Iraq en total, without titular reference to XYZ nation "leading" it. DocumentError (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Myself included. Furthermore, the creator of this page has explicitly stated his non-opposition to including Iran and other actors here. So make the move request, and let's work this out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You have unilaterally undone my name changes, expressed absolute opposition to my suggestions, and declined to respond when I've asked you for your suggestions. So I don't know what you think is going to happen here. There's no choice left to salvage this article in the appearance of simple obstinance. You've only left us the AfD. DocumentError (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried to engage you in the process of improving this content. Yes, I have called you on not assuming good faith toward other editors, and yes, I do oppose the RfD you created. I urge you to reconsider this WP:BATTLE attitude you have adopted and work toward a consensus. I am fully prepared to work with you, and I have said so numerous times. This bickering isn't getting us anywhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Agree to this or get lost" does not equal "prepared to work with you." DocumentError (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying "agree to this or get lost" or anything to that effect to you. If you can find an example of that, by all means, please share it with me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, among three different examples, just above for one: "I don't like that title" - followed by a revert and total refusal to discuss alternate titles until after the matter had to finally be dragged to ANI. DocumentError (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you can provide diffs of me refusing to discuss alternate titles? -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I asked what you would suggest for alt titles and you refused to reply. I can't provide a diff to text that doesn't exist, as you are well aware. My dangling question that you chose to ignore is below, under the systemic bias RfC. DocumentError (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understood it, your question was to SantiLak. If I had something to add at the time, I would have. Not responding to a question addressed to another user =/= "total refusal to discuss alternate titles". -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You were the one who initiated the revert, the question was addressed to you. But I'm not going to play these games you seem intent to pursue so obfuscate however you like in reply. DocumentError (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this WP:BATTLE behavior is not constructive, and I am frankly baffled as to why you insist on spitting on my hand every time I extend it to you. I want to work with you on this stuff. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that, cooperation is important in wikipedia and attacking other users who try and work with you is not constructive. SantiLak (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing you have done that indicate a willingness to work collaboratively, from the trite tones you've used in ANI, your accusations of civility issues where none existed, to your total intrasigence in addressing the fundamental wrongness and blatant disruptiveness of this article's existence and your repeated apologizing for it, to the gang mentality you and your trio have adopted. Putting on these pony shows where you appear contrite and polite may fool the drive-by editor but anyone who observes the broad pattern of your interaction will be unimpressed. DocumentError (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you feel I have been impolite at any point in this discussion, by all means, post the diff. I'm not sure if you are conflating me with other editors or what, but all evening, I have been trying to find common ground with you, explain the issues I have taken with some of your editing behavior, and take a conciliatory approach. You don't want to work with me at all -- you've made that clear. Consider it a standing offer. Who knows -- maybe you'll feel better once you cool off and take it down a notch, as I suggested hours ago. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I need to post diffs? You think "cool off and take it down a notch" is something that someone is likely to take with a skip and a smile? Passive-aggressive baiting is not useful, not constructive, and not helpful to encyclopedia-building. DocumentError (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither is assuming bad faith and suggesting an editor should recuse themselves because they have a picture of fighter jets on their userpage. As I explicitly stated, that's the only reason I called you out: [2] [3]. I did not vote "no" to your question of systemic bias. I said, repeatedly, that I agree with you the article should not exclude outside actors like Iran that are not part of the U.S. coalition: [4] [5] [6] [7] I have repeatedly said I see reconciliation as possible here and I want to work with you, even in spite of your hostility: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] The only real problem I have had with you tonight is the way you have treated me and other editors -- this WP:BATTLE behavior that is getting us nowhere fast and will not improve the content one iota. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a great point. On the one hand you say this article is biased, yet on the other hand you refuse to weigh-in on the bias discussion; the result of its failure will be the removal of the systemic bias tag. Like I said, your act is very cute but I'm not interested in games-playing. As for "the only reason I 'called you out'" ... I don't know if that's an apology or what. I don't believe it is productive to "call out" other editors and I just choose not to engage in "calling out." Maybe that's something you could choose not to do as well? DocumentError (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said the article was biased. I haven't weighed in on the discussion -- not out of refusal, but because I haven't made up my mind one way or the other. I did speak up and say that I thought you accusing the editor who created this page of acting in bad faith and intentionally introducing bias was not constructive or appropriate, and no, I'm not going to apologize for that. It was unfair of you, it violated WP:AGF and WP:PA, and it has been tainting the discussion from the get-go. Even in spite of that, as I have pointed out again and again tonight, I have repeatedly expressed openness to working with you and entreated you to work with other editors toward consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are of the legitimate opinion that "cool off and take it down a notch" is "expressing openness" then the only thing I can do is reference you to WP:CALMDOWN, which I suggest you read. But I'm sure you knew exactly what you were saying, as your edit pattern indicates. DocumentError (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Systemic Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The existence of this article indicates strong systemic bias in favor of the United States. Though created with the intention to cover the Iraq theater of the current ISIS conflict it is named in such a way as to exclude all non-U.S. aligned actors involved in that theater. Does this article display systemic bias?

Opinion in Brief

Yes This article displays a US-centric worldview and is created with the intention of excluding and obfuscating involvement by non U.S.-government sanctioned parties. DocumentError (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No This article does not display a US-centric worldview because the only party involved that is sanctioned by the US government is the US military and the other partners in Iraq are acting independently and were invited by the Iraqi government. There is not systemic bias and just because the United States is a large actor in an intervention does not mean the article does not recognize what other countries have done. This article was created in good faith and should stay. The issues you have should be resolved on the talk page, not through CSD tags. SantiLak (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No - I created this page with the name it is to go with the sister article on the Syrian intervention, America led it with the aide of John Kerry whom went country to country gathering allies to join in. Not many countries are playing as large of a role as America is in Iraq but that is not likely to change as America appears to be putting the most effort --Acetotyce (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lead" means "to go before or show the way." RS indicates Iran was first into Iraq. Further, the image on your userpage seems to indicate you have a POV COI. You should recuse yourself from this discussion. DocumentError (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add Iran in, I believe there shouldn't be a war over this article. It's merely a name I never did intend it to be pro American. As for my userpage image, those are F-15's from the IDF, I see nothing wrong with it. I never intended to come upon you negatively, and I believe I have the right to participate in the discussion of the article I created. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As you very well know, it would be erroneous and duplicitous to add Iran as a party to the "American-led intervention in Iraq." DocumentError (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• No – This article is not about Iran. This article is about the American-led intervention against ISIL that just began, not about earlier machinations by Iran, or by anyone else. RGloucester — ☎ 02:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - A reactions section can be made as well as sources that inject the other side's POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Systemic Bias complaint fails. Tag should be removed. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The tag has been up for a few hours. Please give editors an opportunity to express their opinion. Wikipedia is not a race. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think DocumentError, regrettably, fails to assume good faith here. I can't speak for the creator of this page, but personally, while I have stated my support for expanding this article's scope to cover the actions of Iran and other outside players not affiliated with the United States (so...basically just Iran, I guess, for now), I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that Acetotyce created this page for the purposes DocumentError accuses him of. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The existence of the page indicates the page is "named in such a way as to exclude all non-U.S. aligned actors involved in that theater." The page is named 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. DocumentError (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are forgetting to assume good faith. SantiLak (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are forgetting to assume good faith by accusing me of forgetting to assume good faith. This is a factual statement: The existence of the page indicates the page is "named in such a way as to exclude all non-U.S. aligned actors involved in that theater." The page is named 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq.' DocumentError (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your quibble with the title, which I am also not overly fond of, is not a valid excuse not to assume good faith. Acetotyce indicated quite clearly on Talk:American-led intervention in Syria that he is not married to the title either: [13] -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The title was a key point of the ongoing discussion. I am absolutely livid this article was created in such a way to trump and terminate that dialog and in clear contravention of the good faith support myself, and others, had given to create a separate theater-specific article. DocumentError (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And I think you need to calm down and stop making wild accusations about fellow editors. Your treatment of Acetotyce on this Talk page has been reprehensible. Once again, I say this as somebody who agrees with you about the article scope. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I second Kudzu1's concern, none of this is necessary. The names for the three articles are all aimed with an American lead sort of feel but in reality the conflict has many parts to it that aren't led by the Americans. Surely we can discuss about the renaming in a later time or after this is all sorted out but we should be relaxed when it comes to fellow editors. Content disputes are no fun, basically everyone has disagreements. Let me make it clear, I never intended for this article to be biased towards the American side, I am not that person. As a Canadian I have no reason to do so. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I third Kudzu1's concern's along with Acetotyce's concern's. Content disputes are difficult and I've had some long and difficult ones but accusing people of having a conflict of interest because of a picture is a little too far. I also don't want to be biased towards the american's. I may be an American but here I am a Wikipedian and I don't let any biases get involved in my editing. SantiLak (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So what do you suggest the article be renamed to, in that case? DocumentError (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This title describes the events correctly, though we can iterate on the specifics later. However, this article is only about the American-led intervention, and not about Iranian intervention or anyone else's intervention. That would be an erroneous conflation, and a nonsense solution. RGloucester — ☎ 02:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError has attempted to expand the scope of these articles for some time now [14], as well as [15] and [16]. Even though the consensus up to that point was to maintain them as they were, he keeps pushing for the changes he wants through multiple venues. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. I don't deny at all that I've been attempting "to expand the scope of these articles." DocumentError (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of DocumentError's efforts to go against consensus. Complain about the title being too limiting, add parties that are outside the title and thrust of the article, keep battling. Stop it. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry discussion tires you. However, I cannot realistically be expected to stop expressing my opinion because you're tired. DocumentError (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss improvements all day, I tired of seeing your efforts to disrupt articles by pushing a non-conscience POV. Please stop and reread your many comments and attacks on other editors. I am sensing you are more interested in winning than in building a good article. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I view this article as liberating the overarching article to include Syria/Iran/Russia. The American-led forces are a unique factor in this conflict, worthy of their own coverage. Now that they have it, the over-arching article should cover everyone who doesn't fall under that umbrella. Juno (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who are the ground partners in the American-led intervention

per this and other discussions, we cut the list down

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Iraqi Kurds - for sure partnered with Americans
• PKK (Turkey Kurds)- are helping the Iraqi kurds, but not allied with the Americans - should exclude?
• Iranian Kurds - helping Iraqi Kurds, but not partnered with US
• Iraqi Army - for sure partnered with Americans
• Shiite Militias - helping the Iraqi army, but not allied with Americans as far as I can tell?
• Iranians, Russians, Syrian Govt - not partnered with Americans for sure, and we agreed to exclude them

I hate to bring this up given the drama around the page, but an edit [17] by User:David O. Johnson got me thinking. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Syrian gov should be included as their participation is part of Syrian civil war and not the intervention. Iran and Russia on the other hand yes but not Syria. PKK should be separated from US but included along with Shiite militias. SantiLak (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought the point here was a two sided conflict - US+Allies vs ISIL which means all other parties are not belligerents. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about Iran and Russia more in the idea of an article with an expanded scope, but PKK are working with the Kurds and the Shiite militias with the Iraqi army even though the US isn't.

If they aren't operating with direct coalition support and/or under coalition direction, they shouldn't be included. Iranian-led intervention in Iraq or 2014 military intervention against ISIS is the right place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Kurds are the top two. Iran, Syria and Russia seem to be more aimed towards aiding the Iraqi government as opposed to the American intervention. I would be careful with the PKK though as they are labelled as a terrorist organization, they work alongside the other Kurds that are aided by the American-led intervention. They support the strikes and are relatively positive with the involvement. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

• UK – A Voyager A330 inflight refueling aircraft was also in used since September 28th. 2 Tornado GR4 fighter bombers are listed, but not the refuling tanker. There are 6 Tornado GR4 stationed in Cyprus in total so who has put two. A C-130 Hercules cargo plane, 4 Chinook helicopters, along with personnel from 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment and UK Special Forces. Additionally, the British Royal Navy has contributed HMS Defender and HMS Astute to the British Iraqi operations. All such contributions should be added or Wikipedia is not fulfilling it's role as an accurate source of information.
• 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
• 6 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft
• 1 Type 45 destroyer
• 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
• 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.

• Israel – The Israeli government provided satellite imagery and intelligence about Western volunteers fighting for Islamic State to support the US-led campaign.
• Australia – 6 F/A-18F Super Hornets a E-7A Wedgetail and a KC-30A were sent in on Sept 28th
• USA - Cruise missiles hit Akl Raqqar in Sirya. A refinery, the GPO, power station and army recruit center were hit on September 23rd American drones select new traget data on August 28th
• Turkey – A mortar shells hit near the Turkey/Sirya border crossing of Mursitpinar, close to a group of journalists and Turkish security forces, and another shell landed near a refugee camp, about one kilometer inside Turkey on Sept 29th.

90.244.94.220 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Venezuela – The Venezuela leader calls ISIS a Western 'Frankenstein' . Venezuela’s leftist President Nicolas Maduro on Sept 25 accused the west of creating ISIS ans a avaunt provocateur to justify the invasion of the Middle East. He pledged loyalty to President Assad's regime

90.244.94.220 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• South Africa – RSA's Muslims condemn ISIS.
• Czech Republic – The Czech Republic sent (with the help of Royal Canadian Air Force) ammunition to the Kurds. The supply consisted of 10 million rounds for AK-47, 8 million rounds for machinegun, 5,000 warheads for RPG and 5,000 hand grenades.

For Israel, please see previous discussion.

Venezuela's link to source just leads to Google so I added the presumed sources:

• Venezuela – At the 69th General Assembly of the United Nations, President Nicolas Maduro stated that "It's President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government which have stopped the terrorists" and continued by saying "Instead of bombing and bombing, we must make an alliance for peace". President Maduro concluded his statement saying, "Only an alliance that respects these nations’ sovereignty and the assistance of their governments, people and armed forces will truly defeat Islamic terrorism as well as all of the terrorist forces that have emerged like a Frankenstein, a monster nursed by the West itself". (Sources: International Business Times, Al Arabiya and others)

As for RSA Muslims in South Africa condemning ISIS, this does not have much to do with military intervention but may be added to another article.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Denmark- Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt announced that Denmark would be deploying 250 pilots and staff, three reserve jets on the 26th. 4 combat jets were added later that day.

Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt announced that Denmark would be deploying 250 pilots and staff, three reserve F-16 fighter jets and four F-16 fighter jet combatant planes on the 27th

A now captured Danish-Turkish militant who fought with ISIS in Syria, OA, told Danish newspaper Politiken earlier in September that Denmark was “high up on [ISIS’s] list of targets, believe me.” PET, the Danish security and intelligence service, released a report revealing that 15 of 100 Danes who have traveled to fight as ISIS militants have been killed in Syria.

• Australia- Aussie police call for calm after terrorist inspired 'Isis' graffiti attack in the city of Cairns on September 22nd.

Australia offers 200 special forces to the Kurds on September 30th 600 Aussie troops land in the UAE on Sept 14th

400 Air Force personnel, up to eight Super Hornet aircraft, an early warning and control aircraft and an aerial refuelling aircraft were also pleged on the 14th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.94.220 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• EUUSA- Large numbers staged protests in Europe and the United States on the 26th in solidarity with the mostly Kurdish people of Kobane in Syria, coinciding with the first US airstrikes on the city’s outskirts on Saturday against Islamic State (IS or ISIS) forces. Sit-ins and protests took place on Friday and Saturday in cities in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Britain, Austria and the United States.

• Belgium- Belgian participation for one month was authorized by the country's Chamber of Representatives in the afternoon of September 19th, after more than 3½ hours of debate.

The Belgian military contingent should number 120, including eight pilots and an unknown amount of F-16 multirole fighters, to be based in Jordan, Defense Minister Pieter De Crem.

• USA- A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in northern Syria, in the morning of September 23, 2014. Reuters

90.244.94.220 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom subject to the bottom of the listings.

vote taken on parent article, 100% for alphabetical

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

UK is one of the leading contributors to this intervention and yet it is being subjected to the bottom of the heap while Australia is being flagged up as some kind of junior partner to the US. Britain is one of the world's great powers and her involvement is way more significant to readers than Australia's, additionally Britain is contributing more than Australia. I shall make the necessary amendments, placing Britain and other British related matters underneath the United States. — VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've just reverted your change. The ordering was to have the US at the head, as the leader of the coalition, then other nations listed alphabetically. I don't think there was any intention to denigrate the UK contribution. You could also sign your comments... GoldenRing (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah and I just reverted your revert. Until this article is locked I will keep doing it. "Alphabetically" ordered is a poor excuse to put the UK at the back, does not fool me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We are going by alphabetical order until WP:CONSENSUS determines otherwise. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"Consensus is something everybody can agree to but nobody really wants". No wonder this article is up for deletion, it's sister article is much better and preparing to catapult the UK to number 2 once the page's lock is done away with. Anti Brits on here. Shameful VeryangryBrit (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article was proposed for deletion for totally different reasons. It's alphabetical order, not everything is a conspiracy against britain. Also you are on of the reasons that the page was locked in the first place because of constantly changing the place of countries in the infobox. Be careful what you edit because these pages are under active community sanctions. SantiLak (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of being a reason for sanctioning. Perhaps people should have not been so ignorant and contemptuous towards the British contribution, I was doing my duty as a modifier to ensure Wikipedia was accurate which it was not thanks to a lot of bias against the UK. Think before you type sir. VeryangryBrit (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do think before I type and the page was locked because of an RPP describing how their was repeated editing of whether Britain was on top in the infobox or at the bottom. You were one of the users involved in those changes. Also I didn't accuse you of being the reason for sanctions, I stated that you were one of the users who cause the admin only lock. because of your edits. There is not contempt towards British users, just users who state things such as that they are "preparing to catapult the UK to number 2 once the page's lock is done away with" which isn't a good sign. SantiLak (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if you continue to edit-war, you may be blocked. I don't like taking people to the noticeboard, but I will do so if I see you persisting in your disruption here or on the parent article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

VeryangryBrit— VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. has been warned at the edit warring notice board. Looking forward to positive constructive efforts together. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section Mergers

We now have two contributions sections that should be worked together. Someone want to tackle that? Thanks Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 added for this one

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Iran, the UK and France have pages to.90.244.94.220 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel that because the US has intervened in Iraq before and lead intervention that the title should be "2014 American-led intervention in Iraq" SantiLak (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@SantiLak: Sounds good, there is a discussion at Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS whether the name should be more internationally focused than American led. I believe we should voice our opinions there before renaming it. But I'm fine with whichever name is decided and agreed by everyone in the community. --Acetotyce (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Something in the title needs to distinguish this from the other American wars in Iraq. I think that adding probably "2014" fits that bill. Juno (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like I forgot the "2014" when I moved it earlier. Support moving it back, at least as a temporary measure, although I think American-led intervention in Iraq (2014) might be more aesthetically pleasing. Not sure what convention is considered preferable for military operations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to move it to add 2014. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You can put it for a technical move request at WP:Moving a page. This doesn't seem controversial to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this page locked so it can't be moved? Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, but I think because it formerly resided at 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq, that redirect page has to be deleted to make way for a move. Only an administrator can do that, and there's a process for it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title workshopping

Above, RGloucester and I were observing that 2014 Iraq crisis or 2014 Iraq conflict would be a suitable rename for Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014). I am also unsatisfied with this article's specific focus on the U.S. coalition, when Iran and other actors are involved. I'd like to workshop this before making a formal movereq, but my proposal would be International involvement in the 2014 Iraq crisis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support I will withdraw my AfD if this article is renamed International involvement in the 2014 Iraq crisis (assuming no better name comes into popular use in the future) - I would prefer this not take the form of a workshop but an absolute naming consensus exercise as the title needs to be amended as quickly as possible DocumentError (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you make the movereq, I will support it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Would International intervention in 2014 Iraq crisis or International military intervention in 2014 Iraq crisis be apt? The other name seems open ended to any involvement at all while intervention or military intervention are more specific. SantiLak (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Add a "the", as in International intervention in the 2014 Iraq crisis, and it's fine. I know other editors, however, have objected in the past to calling it an "international intervention" without specifying the countries involved, as it does imply a particular military action. "Involvement" is also more inclusive of the humanitarian aid provided to the Yazidis and other communities. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the larger article we have included humanitarian aid even though it is titled as an intervention. I am simply concerned with parties that aren't relevant to the article being added like Syria or really any party that has in someway or another done something that has involved this crisis while they might not actually belong in the article. Iran for sure and Hezbollah maybe because I'm waiting to see the refs on that but some others wouldn't make sense. SantiLak (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're waiting for; Hezbollah is well-reffed in the main article from which this was branched. DocumentError (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well then go ahead and transfer the refs here. I hadn't seen those refs for hezbollah. SantiLak (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will not add Hezbollah to an article named "American-led intervention in Iraq" as that would be totally inaccurate and unencyclopediac. Hezbollah has repeatedly said they will operate against ISIS in Iraq independent of the U.S. Therefore, they are not part of the "American-led intervention" but are part of the "Iranian-led intervention." DocumentError (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been accused of a variety of atrocities at ANI, I will not be making any movereqs. DocumentError (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The humanitarian aid was mostly given on response to the talks for military intervention. I don't think it offers issue in naming.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (mostly) The actions of the American-led Force in Iraq are unique. They are primarily covered by the press in that manner. "International intervention in Iraq" could be a great article, but it should be a different article than this one. This article should just focus on the American-led Force. Juno (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Given the cleanup and refocus of 2014 military intervention against ISIL which now has clear Iraq and Syria sections does anyone think we need the proposed changes? Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC:Should an article be created containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014?

This matter has been discussed here prior. The RFC is here:Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_IraqSerialjoepsycho (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Also asked: If you support this how should the article be created? Should a new article be created or should this article be merged with 2014 American-led intervention in IraqSerialjoepsycho (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• No one should want to go down this rabbit hole of a debate again. It is all over the talk pages so your post borders on disruptive editing but I assume it is in good faith. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely and wholly disagree. You have RFC's above that would have answered the question that were closed. They did not run there 30 days. They were not allowed to solicit the opinion of the greater community. If you are aware of an RFC or other form of communication that solicits uninvolved editors that was completed on this page or another please give me a link and I'll happily close this one. This question has asked here. It has been mentioned on the Iranian led version. From your comment I feel that it has possibly been raised elsewhere. An RFC will answer this question and it won't be a local consensus. I'm not asking anyone to jump in the rabbit hole but to fill it in with dirt.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With the cleanup of 2014 military intervention against ISIL there are now distinct sections for Iraq and Syria, with summaries and links to the various interventions. An Iraq or Syria summary article would needlessly duplicate the existing summary at 2014 military intervention against ISIL and add nothing to help the reader in my opinion. I think the rabbit has been beat to death and stuffed in the hole through multiple RfCs and discussion on the talk page for the linked article and elsewhere. And sorry if I came across as snarky Serialjoepsycho it was not frustration directed at you. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think there is 2 or 3 ANI's related to it right now so no worries about any snarkiness. From what I've seen no RFC answers this question. Some of the ones above could have but they were closed prematurely. You make great points above and I'm sure you should have no problem convincing others. You want it closed because you feel like (what amounts to me as a local consensus) it's been answered. If You look at the RFC you will see a call to wait and do this RFC later. I can see no reason to close it and it seems to me that's probably in the best interest for it to run its course. But if you want take it to request for closure. If you can justify to them that it should be closed I have no reason to contest that closure.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you are not advocating for another article... but maybe I'm unclear on that. If someone really wants to start an article they don't need an RfC, they can start it but I expect it will be challenged for deletion as either duplicating this article or the summary one. There is just no unique subject to be covered. Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for anything. I asked a nuetral question. A question that keeps popping up. If you answer that question with support I have offered two reasonable scenarios to implement it. You of course are not limited to those scenarios. If you support the first question you are free to suggest an alternative. If you do not support the first scenario there is nothing to implement. As far as any article being deleted it would have to be created first. Then it would have to be taken to AFD. But that is probably a good argument to offer anyone opting to duplicate the content.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You realise the first question is of course the question in the title?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Even if they're not there yet, this is what the overarching article is trying to be, and we should help them get there. I don't think that there is much use in a new article. A list of ever country might be in order, though. Juno (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Start date

I'm having trouble finding much information on the U.S. and partners actively intervening prior to the start of airstrikes on Islamic State positions on 7 August 2014: [18] Should this be the start date we list for the intervention in the infobox? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There was ongoing general support for Iraqi govt/military with advisors, trainers and equipment but I am not aware of anything on a scale big enough to justify an earlier start date for this intervention. Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember the movement of large numbers of American troops in-country as being a big deal, along with the unapproved flights over Iraqi territory. Juno (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I would favor moving back to the original date. Juno (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I went back to the original? Juno (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it back. Juno (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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 move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 American-led intervention in Iraq → 2014 United States led intervention in Iraq – or 2014 U.S. led intervention in Iraq. This was a military intervention with principle players being the: United States Army, United States Air Force and [[[United States Navy]] as members of the United States Armed Forces and recieving bipartisan support in the United States Congress and endorsed by the president of the United States. Allies of the United States tend to call it the United States. Enemies of the United States tend to use the ambiguous term America. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It really doesn't seem ambiguous nor does it seem necessary to make the title longer. That's just my take on it. - SantiLak (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Soft oppose - I don't share your concerns about ambiguity and tend to favor "America" because it is short, but I am not strongly attached to this opinion. Juno (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• No strong opinion either way but just wanted to ask the nominator if he intended to omit the hyphen in his proposed titles. FWIW, the "allies call it the United States, enemies use America" rationale seems backwards: try searching for usages of each term on bbc.co.uk or the thestar.com (Toronto Star) site, then try again on presstv.ir (Iran Press TV) or kcna.co.jp (North Korean Central News Agency). On the other hand I'm mildly sympathetic to the idea that the title of this article should be consistent with United States Armed Forces, etc. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There may be some support on WP:COMMONNAME grounds: I see about 9 million Google hits for "United States * intervention in Iraq", vs. 2 million for "American * intervention in Iraq". 61.10.165.33 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be dense. "United States" & "intervention in Iraq" together could refer to myriad different things and usages. Look at the first result in your little search. It reads "A Twitter-based campaign threatening retaliation against the United States for intervention in Iraq". As you can see, that's a grammatically different structure, and has no relation to our discussion here. Google searches mean nothing. They are not accurate representations of usage, and what's more, this is a WP:NDESC title not affected by WP:UCN anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 02:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks on other editors because they don't agree 100% with your opinions. WP:NDESC titles are typically used when the common name is non-neutral or confusing; here there's no such issue either way (seems we both disagree with the nominator's contention about "enemies call it America"). Anyway, taking your point about the use of * in searches, here's a search on the exact phrase: "US intervention in Iraq" -wikipedia (1.2 million) vs. "American intervention in Iraq" -wikipedia (165k). The ratio is less lopsided when limited to reliable sources such as books (I get roughly 3 to 1). 61.10.165.33 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack. My apologies if you took it that way. Your density aside, once again, this is a WP:NDESC title used because there is no one single unambiguous common name (as in this case). Journalistic shorthand isn't used for article titles, and we don't use acronyms like "US" in titles (except for parenthetical disambiguation), aside from the matter of "United States". Once again, "US intervention in Iraq" could refer to anything. Nothing about your search proves that that is a common name for these particular events, and nothing about your search separates reliable from unreliable sources. Even further, WP:TITLECHANGES discourages us from making these kinds of changes, as such a change would violate WP:CONCISE and would not in any advance our title policy. It would accomplish nothing other than to damage the stability of our articles. RGloucester — ☎ 02:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – This move request is frivolous, and should be closed. We've had enough of these nonsense page moves, and stability is key. The name is settled. The idea that "allies tend to call it the United States" is absurd. In the English language, "American" always refers to the United States of America. It is unambiguous. Americans themselves call themselves "American". This article must be consistent with articles like 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine or French conquest of Tunisia. The adjectival form is always used for these types of articles. In fact, reliable sources use the phrase "American-led intervention". Please see this article from The New York Times as one example: "American flags, American military officials, American air strikes, American intervention, American-led coalition, American efforts". Is a renowned American newspaper, The New York Times, an "enemy of the United States"? Can we stop this nonsense? What's more, the present title is more WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – same reasons as RGloucester plus an American is someone from the United States of America - proposer seems to be forgetting the A in USA. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the terms "America" and "United States" are synonymous. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester it is no more frivilrous than your Basque people → Basques that you seem so passionate about. The "United States Armed Forces" call themselves the United States Armed Forces and the consistent use of "United States" related terms stretches across US politics, military and defence. Legacypac, nothing is forgotten. David O. Johnson They are not synonymous, American is largely used in relation to cultural pursuits and by enemies of the US. United States is used in politics, by the military and in international relations and sport. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not American but have extensive experience with the USA. In Canada we always refer to the Americans, and we have not been at war with Americans for 200 years. The statement made just above by Gregkaye is something I've never heard before - got any sources for that? Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am an American and I agree with Legacypac, American is not used to describe Americans as bad. It is less official than saying United States but definitely not used to describe the United States badly so far as I have seen. - SantiLak (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac which statement are you asking about?

RGloucester :

The statement "American is largely used in relation to cultural pursuits and by enemies of the US. United States is used in politics, by the military and in international relations and sport. Gregkaye" is really surprising to me - can references be provided that support this? The American public (not the United States public) would be shocked to know this. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Your reference to the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine rightly relates to the Russian Ground Forces
• Your reference to the French conquest of Tunisia rightly relates to the French Navy and the French Army

The current RM is either to 2014 United States led intervention in Iraq or 2014 U.S. led intervention in Iraq rightly relates to the actions of the United States Armed Forces and to the common form of title adopted by a plethora of articles and categories within Category:Military of the United States. Alternatively it may continue the form of the many Wikipedia articles marked “U.S. Politician” and similar. This article is currently off field. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Like subcategories American military aviation and American military writers and articles American_Revolutionary_War , American_Civil_War and American-led intervention in Syria are off field? or in sport we have American_football and baseball's American League. We even have an article on Americans which is all about citizens of the USA. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You have obviously taken a look into Category:Military of the United States and know what I am saying. In the context of the United States Army, the United States Air Force, the United States Navy within the United States Armed Forces as directed by the United States Congress and the president of the United States the article title 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is off field. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess what? The name of the "Russian Armed Forces" is actually "Armed Forces of the Russian Federation". However, we don't use that title, because it is less concise. What's more, fellow, this intervention isn't just about military matters, so this is a bizarre connection to make. As far as "Basques", that move is not in a contentious area where contentious moves are constantly being requested. Please check your bad faith at the door. Once again, perhaps you did not look at The New York Times I provided, but I don't think anyone would be shocked by the use of the word "American" in this context, and in fact, it is the most appropriate form. Why does that article say "American military officials"? Why does it say "American intervention"? "United States" is not an adjective, and hence, cannot modify a noun like "intervention". RGloucester — ☎ 12:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if you'd have read the guidelines I'd linked about titles, you'd see that the acronym "US" is only allowed in parenthetical disambiguation, nor article titles. RGloucester — ☎ 12:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. We essentially did this two months ago, here. That article is now called "2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", but at the time the move request was from "2014 American intervention in Iraq" to "2014 United States intervention in Iraq". It failed. The rationale then is basically the same as the one now, although the bit about America's enemies being the ones that call it "America" is new. (Wholly unsupported by evidence and entirely contrary to my own experience, but new.) Since this is a nearly identical request, I'm just going to reuse my comment from that discussion:

General consensus favors the use of "American" in article titles to refer to things related to the United States – see American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, Mexican–American War, Spanish–American War (certainly "US military actions"), and even American football and Americans. The continents of North and South America have seen other revolutions, and civil wars, and wars with Spain, and even other football codes, but nobody is confused. Demonyms are also frequently used in this sort of article. Here are a few examples:

French intervention in Mexico

French campaign in Egypt and Syria

French invasion of Russia

French conquest of Tunisia

British colonization of the Americas

British rule in Burma

Japanese occupation of the Philippines

Japanese occupation of Hong Kong

Japanese occupation of Malaya

Japanese invasion of French Indochina

German military administration in occupied France during World War II

German occupation of Estonia during World War II

Russian colonization of the Americas

Russian invasion of Manchuria

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

–Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This should be closed as frivolous. This move request was opened 1 day after the user was warned against initiating discussions on page moves on the ISIL article, and could be construed as breaching the Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions in place. see my opinion above. [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac you have already passed an opinion on this move request, there is no reason to add a second opinion which could be seen as misleading. I think you should strike through your last comment and simply let the RM run its course. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Using the term "America" as a synonym for the "United States" is offensive to non-U.S. Americans (i.e. Bolivians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinos, etc.). Throughout the Spanish-speaking western hemisphere the term estadounidense is used to refer to U.S. citizens instead of americano precisely for this reason. DocumentError (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is outrageous. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. In English, American means "AMERICAN". If you have a problem that, please go to the Spanish Wikipedia where your "estadounidense" urges will be obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 14:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

By the same token, I find a Spanish-speaking republic's use of the word "Columbia" offensive. "Columbia" refers to the United States of America, and did so first. If only they hadn't co-opted the precious American name of "Columbia". Haven't you ever heard "Hail, Columbia"? We'd better go about renaming Columbia, then. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain that's etymologically or culturally true. Among English-speakers in the Hispanosphere "American" means someone from "the Americas." The correct term is estadounidense, but since that's not translatable ("United States-er" is not a common term) we should endeavor, when possible, to refer to things as "the United States this" or "the United States that." When the USA president is introduced to the congress, the doorman doesn't say "Mr. Speaker, the American President" he says "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States." The fact is, estadounidense do not have an informal name for their nation-state like the Russian Federation ("Russia") or Federal Republic of Germany ("Germany"), or United Kingdom ("Greater Manchester"), only a formal name. But, honestly, I'm not passionately supporting this name change and frankly think we have bigger fish to fry. DocumentError (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, he'd say "the President of the United States of America", as that's the formal title. There is a "short-form" of "United States of America", and it is "America". Pull whatever bits of OR out of thin air that you'd like, but that doesn't change the reality. America, in English, means "the United States of America", and "American" means someone from the United States of America, which is why our article on those people is titled Americans. There is no debate on this. Please, go to "the Hispanosphere" Wikipedia, where they can indulge you in stupidity. Until you give the Americans their "Columbia" back, you ain't getting "America". RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm ... in fact, never in the history of video or audio-recordings of State of the Union addresses has the doorman said "United States of America." He's always said "United States." Here's the 2012 edition: [19] Also, unless you're talking about a city in Missouri, I think you mean Colombia. Let me know if you have any other questions - thanks! DocumentError (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I cater to the whims of foreigners? There is a "u" in "Columbia", and there always will be. They can corrupt words as much as they like, but I'll always speak proper English. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those dirty foreigners. DocumentError (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You can cherry pick alot to make your case. Alot can be Cherry picked to make the opposite case. This dispute is rather pedantic honestly. The tipping point to avoid changing this is that it is promotional in nature. This is meant to speak out against the Usage of America in this way. This is an Encyclopedia not a soapbox.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose American is the common name for a person from the United States. It does not make sense to move the article when it is obvious what the term American is referring to the US, not Latin America. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• OpposeI understand this political position coming from Latin America but you can't use wikipedia to force your political position on others. Go out in the world and legitimize it. Wikipedia is not here to legitimize it. When it becomes legit wikipedia will be here to record it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

"Operation Inherent Resolve"

The Pentagon has now given the operations against ISIL a name, "Operation Inherent Resolve".Los Angeles Times, Fox News, Washington Post Wasn't sure where exactly to place this info since there are separate articles for US led operations in Iraq and Syria.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on this issue here. Contributions are welcome. - SantiLak (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the American-led intervention in Syria page

Regarding what sections dealing with the name/previously nameless American Operation should be called. Please take a look. Juno (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of Countries in Infobox

A discussion on the parent article came to consensus that the American-led collation should be listed with USA (leader) first followed by all cooperating countries Alphabetically. Only countries with military operations in in or over Iraq (or Syria) get listed. Part of the rational is the inability for us to judge the relative size of contributions in an ongoing conflict (does a ship equal 10 planes or 50 advisors on the ground). There was disruptive resorting of countries going on. Also the forces and commander sections would be alphabetical by country to match. Is everyone ok with this. 70.78.41.231 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC) If you support this position - indicate Support below

Opinions: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.41.231 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• American, then countries who have committed ground forces (alphabetical order), then countries who are otherwise supporting (alphabetical order) Juno (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Several constructional flaws

Colleagues, the construction of this article is illogical/inconsistent at points.
The lead section suggests ‘intervention’ to mean here: airstrikes against IS (in Iraq). As the lead doesn’t speak of any other ‘mission’ except that said mission of intervening with airstrikes, section 4’s title ‘contributions to mission’ can’t mean anything else than: contributions to airstrikes in Iraq against ISIL.

[1] But then, why is section 4 doubled with section 6 with a title meaning almost exactly the same? Since the moment the article has got both sections 4 and 6 with titles logically meaning the same, the construction of the article at that point obviously flaws.

[2] However, section 4 contains lots of information on other business outside airstrikes (= direct military action): providing weapons to ‘local forces’, and to Iraqi Army and Peshmerga; humanitarian supply drops to refugees; etc. That’s not in keeping with its title.

[3] Someone considered it desirable to add a section ‘humanitarian efforts’, at this moment numbered as section 7. But that is obviously outside what the lead section and the article’s title define as the scope of the article. We’ll have to choose: either the title of the article most change to be more comprehensive, or topics like humanitarian aid and military aid to Kurds/Iraqi must be left out of this article.

[4] Section 4.1 concerns air bases “used in the conflict”. What ‘conflict’? That can’t refer to anything else than those mentioned airstrikes on Iraq—then why do we suddenly come up with that fancy and mysterious word ‘conflict’? Anyway, it is misplaced as subsection 4.1, it should be moved to a separate section, I don’t care which number, that depends on solving the first problems I just mentioned.

[5] Section 5.2 is totally mysterious to me. What have ground forces to do with the subject of this article which, as I just argued, is nothing else than airstrikes? Seems misplaced, in this article.

[6] Section 5.3 treats on ‘the operation’ having a name. Well, why must that be a subsection under 5 (Am. military actions)? Would seem more logical as separate section, either in the top (section 1 or 2 or 3) or elsewhere. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Chronology on the lead

Right now the lead says that Americans drop aid to Kurds, they tried to intervene in Sanjir, then launched air strikes. But America put in ground troops in June, then launched air strikes, then started arming people up. I think we're much better off with the previous wording for the lead. Juno (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Singapore's contribution

where to place this?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-will-join/1450248.html

Phd8511 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait for specifics before adding. - SantiLak (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

But clearly they won't be contributing military strikes. Wait for what then?Phd8511 (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

They might be sending supplies or trainers or something else, to add we should wait for specifics on what they will contribute. - SantiLak (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be? Have you read the news article? It Clearly specifies what they are sendingPhd8511 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)