Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American-led intervention in Iraq

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. v/r - TP 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American-led intervention in Iraq

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment Striking delete vote. Nominating an article for deletion implies a deletion vote, so that delete vote would essentially be a duplicate vote. You essentially "voted" for deletion when you nominated the article. Safiel (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course, Safiel. Thanks for catching this error of mine. DocumentError (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my deletion opinion per below, I have no objection to a future merge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a specific American-led intervention going on, that's why. It is notable in its own right. It is called "American-led" because "America" started the initiative, and has carried out most of stuff. Regardless, the title can be iterated on. You've missed the mark here. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Knowledgekid87. It's a small group of editors trying to evade protection on the merge-to article. For full disclosure, I've also raised this at ANI here - [1] but have also nominated here as the ANI deals specifically with the article creator's intent. (FYI - I recommend you avoid the ANI unless you want to be called a bunch of names and be the subject of a variety of wild accusations from this tightly canvassed group.) DocumentError (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being honest Im not focused on the editor dispute the only reason you provided for deleting this was that it duplicated an existing article. I do think the AfD should run it's course and would be interested in seeing more opinions on the content matter. Anyways its late so im going to get some rest, I will look into this again tomorrow. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, it's a distinct operation; for another, Iraq is a discrete theater in a campaign that also has a Syrian component, as reflected in American-led intervention in Syria. If the article title is an issue, by all means, you or nominator can start a movereq, instead of distorting the record to claim the article wasn't created in good faith. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Im sure the article was created in good faith I just don't see a reason for a spinout here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI there was more than one American led intervention into Iraq. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • By all means, start a movereq and change the title. I'll probably even support it. As far as I'm concerned, all three of the anti-Islamic State intervention articles are problematically named. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I might consider it, and also have an open mind here. Do you think the article can be expanded upon and put into it's own wording to not look like it is a mirror article? Im just not seeing how this article is working out on it's own for some reason. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do think it can, yes. Basically, remove some of the granular details from 2014 military intervention against ISIS on the Iraqi theater specifically to the spinout page; use the spinout to focus on the details of the operations in Iraq. The parent article should focus more broadly on all efforts in both Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State and support groups that oppose them on the ground. It should direct readers to the daughter articles for Iraq and Syria for details. That relieves pressure to keep up with events that could cause bloat of the parent page, which would be a WP:SIZE concern, and allow the parent article to focus on aspects of the coalition-building that involves, for instance, Kurdish groups on both sides of the border, Turkey's efforts to control the flow of Islamic State militants across its borders, and the relationship between the U.S.-led coalition, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously needless duplication BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that the split occurred due to consensus regarding article content, not as an attempt to get around editing restrictions. The American intervention is heavily sourced independent of the wider intervention, so notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of Eagle, note that the consensus - and I was one of those who formed part of that consensus - was to create an Iraq-theater specific article not a "Team America" article, which was the source of the major disruption that created the need for protection originally. When I opined in support of a branch article, it was specifically NOT this; many other editors were in the same boat. This was a clear case of WP:GAMING. The consensus myself and others previously gave was NOT for this. DocumentError (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DocumentError: So propose that the article be renamed. That is not a valid argument for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an almost word-for-word duplicate of an article that already exists and was created with the intention of implementing edits that could bypass protection on the main article and push the POV of a trio of editors whose edits were part of the reason protection was initially imposed. That's the reason for the AfD. In the above note I was only addressing Spirit's more limited question regarding whether consensus was given for the article. DocumentError (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop promoting your own narrative. It is not true that the article was created to bypass protection, since (as I have previously pointed out here [2] the protection was put into place after we discussed creating the article. If it was true that the article was created "with the intention of ... pushing POV" the discussion would have started following the protection of the page. However, it did not and your claim is demonstrably false. In addition, the page protection of the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article is a distinct issue from what we are discussing; as Empire of War has correctly pointed out here [3], the page protection was done in reaction to the actions of various IP editors. There is no need to resort to false accusations. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who requested the page be protected, I think I know why it was put in place. So don't tell me why I requested it. I know why I requested it. And it was because of POV-pushers who were trying to insert a US-centric bend into the article. DocumentError (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A discussion is currently ongoing on the Talk page of this article, which is current and active in the news, about including the British flag icon in advance of the actual engagement of British forces (currently only a parliamentary resolution has been passed). Nonetheless, 13 different IP editors in the last 36 hours have added the flag icon, necessitating almost constant reverting." You wrote that in the RPP page. Nothing about an alleged us-centric bend. SantiLak (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the relevant RPP [4]. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- I was just about to ask if there is a diff. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
two very different stated reasons written by the same editor. I see a pattern here. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with article content should be addressed in the article's talk page, not through AfD. I still do not see any reason for deletion as all of the problems raised can be solved through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a lot of work but it makes sense. This is a separate theater and there has been support for this on the talk page of the overarching article. Concerns about continued edit warring on this page are legitimate and maybe the page should be subject to the same regime that the overarching article is currently subject to. Juno (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I think RGloucester is quite right in calling this forum shopping and suggesting sanctions against DocumentError. I consider his actions WP:BATTLE. He is also trying a Systematic Bias on the same article at the same time. I agree with all the other reasons too keep too and will not repeat them. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for "sanctions" on other editors has a chilling effect on discussion, particularly since this AfD -based on several instances of user support for Delete - obviously is not a WP:SNOWBALL nom. Considering RGloucester's own colorful block history, I hope you quickly reconsider your demand. DocumentError (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor, in GF omission, forgot to provide a link to the ANI where the "false accusations of Canvassing" occurred. As a courtesy to editor, I am providing it here: [5]. DocumentError (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was mentioning my Talk page, but thanks for highlighting that. --Acetotyce (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched the creation of the main article and all comments on talk page support the making of this article. I'm appalled at the personal attack that this has become. This article was written in good faith as was the main article and the name was changed on that article as well. General consensus on the talk pages suggested this article would be written at some point to slim down the main article. Although I believe the name is probably not the best, I'm sure a vote on changing it would be a better topic then deletion or merging. There's a lot that can be added and changed that's what we do here. As far as canvassing I've read all talk pages and nothing supports that allegation. Notification is necessary when there is a dispute to be discussed and that's all that was done. --WikiButterfly (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, WikiButterfly. I know you've only been on WP for 18 days and your only edits have been to arrange to meet with Acetotyce on IRC, etc., so it's not a big deal, but you should sign your posts with four "~" so it creates a wikilink to your userpage. Like I said, no big deal, just wanted to let you know. Welcome to WP! DocumentError (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and yes I'm new to WP for just a couple weeks and am slowly learning my way around. I do sign all posts with the four ~ as u can tell since u have checked our talk pages. I don't know why it didn't show up that way from my phone. I'll be careful to make sure from now on. --WikiButterfly (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's great that your second set of off-Talk edits was to weigh-in on an AfD and levy WP:PA personal charges against an editor. I don't think I'd even learned where AfD was, or what PA meant, until many months after I'd registered. Congrats and please say hi to Acetotyce on IRC for me. DocumentError (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE PLEASE: This is now almost comical. Consider DocumentError has created Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq which is fine except doing that action is EXACTLY the same crime as what he is complaining about here and elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LegacyPAC. It's not necessary to shout. Also, we generally discourage using words like "comical" to describe the opinions of other editors. Thank you! DocumentError (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is about the US lead campaign and thus is going to be intrinsically US centric, but it's allies need a bit more of a mention. The UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Denmark have also done lot.90.244.94.220 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So has Iran, which is not part of the US-led campaign. They, nonsensically, are left with a separate article about the same conflict, as a result of this insistence of making sure Team America has its own vanity article. Iranian-led intervention in Iraq DocumentError (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is somehow in your opinion a vanity for the US and apparently from what you are accusing us of, you believe we are POV editors trying to make this all about america. I think it's time that we consider that you may be a POV editor too but you seem to be pro-countries like Iran or Syria. Iran should be in an Iraq intervention article but you seem to just want to oppose any neutral articles that mention the US coalition in an important way. They are important to the Iraq intervention, it is not POV to include that in the article or america-centric it is just true. SantiLak (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this line of discussion as constructive; there is nothing to be gained by reading that intent into another editor's actions in this circumstance. The fact that DocumentError did create an article "nonsensically", in his words, promptly suggested another new article for "Syrian-led intervention in Iraq" even while creating the page Talk:Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, and is now pushing for it to be merged with American-led intervention in Iraq at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history certainly brings up some WP:POINT concerns, however. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He brings up valid concerns about the scope of the article but I was just pointing some stuff out that I thought was important when it came to his accusations towards other users. SantiLak (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Lord. Just start lobbying for a block on me. I'm tired of being strung out like this. Let's just get it over with. Canvassing editors, coordinating AfD votes via IRC, etc. I'm done. I didn't sign on for this, Acetotyce, Kudzu, or whatever your name is. Yes, I'm a MISRI secret agent here to push a pro-Iran POV or whatever else you want to think of me. I quit. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now we are all the same editors cause last time I checked we weren't. There has been no canvassing, coordination of AfD votes or use of IRC. You have been accusing us of being all "team america" when you seem less interested in following NPOV rules but in pushing your own. No one is saying you are working for Iran or anyone but when you accuse us all of having a bias and after looking at your edits it seems like you have one yourself. You are acting like this is a huge conspiracy when it really isn't. SantiLak (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I quit.

I should note that you're not the only person to notice that: [6] Guess I'll throw being falsely accused of sockpuppetry with an editor I don't remember having any significant contact with before this past weekend onto the pile of calumnies DocumentError has recklessly hurled my way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WikiButterfly above is a meatpuppet of Acetoyota or whatever his name is - they've been chatting on IRC before she showed up here with her first edits in her WP history - to vote "Keep" unsurprisingly. And it used to be his account (coincidentally, of course); this is all detailed at the relevant SPI investigation. But I don't care. I'm probably talking to another iteration of AceToyota. Do whatever you want with the articles. It's all about you. Delete the Iran-led intervention article and replace it with a giant American flag if you like. This is absolutely crazy, I've never seen anything like this in my time on WP. Like I said, I quit so you don't have to worry about me disrupting your fun anymore. Bye. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If by fun you mean reasonable discussion to find a consensus and work productively on articles then ok. SantiLak (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is the Iranian-led intervention in Iraq a vanity article too? The double standards advocated are comical, as is dragging a content dispute through every process possible - if not comical it is something far worse. There is no way the subject article of this AfD is going to be deleted based on the input from editors already. How do these things get closed? Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. The chances of delete are low right now given the rapid influx of a tightly coordinated group of editors. Nonetheless, we don't close discussions after just a couple hours. That's why I previously reported you for 1RR (you unilaterally shut-down the systemic bias discussion after 6 hours). Why are you in such a hurry, LegacyPAC? [7] DocumentError (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up Ben Carson's similarly named political action committee, not-so-subtly implying that Legacypac is in some way affiliated with it. I don't know Legacypac, haven't worked with him to my knowledge in the past, but he joined Wikipedia c.2007 (well before American Legacy PAC existed, per OpenSecrets.org: [8]) and describes himself as a resident of Canada on his userpage. I know you insist on dredging up other editors' block histories (including my one-hour block from 2011), describing "colorful block histories", and trying to discredit everyone who disagrees with you as "tightly coordinated" and "canvassed" (none of which is true -- my prior interactions with all of these editors except for RGloucester and VQuakr have been either nonexistent or limited, AFAIK; I barely know what IRC is, much less how to use it, much less do I use it to coordinate with other editors; I categorically reject the idea that the neutral notification placed at User talk:Kudzu1, after you failed to notify me as an involved editor, even comes close to meeting the definition of WP:CANVASS), but why don't you lay off the WP:BATTLE, WP:HOUND, and WP:GAMING behavior and just let all of these various requests for administrative attention you have made play out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now the nominator is using Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Merge_Iraq_Theater_articles to gather support to merge the article he tries to delete here with another he himself just stated. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy - this is an AfD for "American-led intervention in Iraq." DocumentError (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original 2014 military intervention against ISIS article was just on Iraq but now that there are two interventions in separate countries with separate coalitions, it seems apt to have an article for both interventions while maintaining the larger one as a summary article. Just my opinion. SantiLak (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I disagree with you - the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article isn't long enough to justify a split at this point, and it's not desirable that we repeat the confusing series of articles which blight our coverage of recent wars involving the US and its allies (for instance we have a 2011 military intervention in Libya article which should cover the whole topic, but also an Operation Odyssey Dawn article which for some reason presents more or less the same bunch of countries as operating under the US code name for the exact same war and for good measure an Operation Unified Protector which presents it as a NATO operation involving non-NATO countries). See also the ridiculous Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa article which wrongly claims that various countries have contributed forces to this US operation. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a split but considering that there is an article that goes more in depth on the Syria intervention than the larger article, I feel that there should be one for the Iraq article too. Also their is a distinct difference between this intervention and the Libya one, this one is taking place in 2 different countries with different partners in each country. The article needs a lot of expansion in order to cover the iraq intervention more in depth but there is a need for a separate article because of the way that the two interventions are different. SantiLak (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article that should be trimmed into an overview, with info transferred to this article suffered a 1 week block at about the same time as this action started at the request of the same editor who wants this article deleted. So it is impossible to clean up the other article to seperate the US-led vsd ISIL in Iraq vs from the US-led vs ISIL in Syria. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That will be resolved soon enough. There's no rush. That being said, it would be nice to have a less cluttered parent article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Another issue is that ..." Hmmm; this wording would suggest the article's existence is justified, at least in part, to evade the lock Kudpung applied (as was the contention in the OP). DocumentError (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough proof that it was not (as I have pointed out numerous times). David O. Johnson (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have a unique perspective, David O. Johnson! I think we'll have to agree to disagree for now. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment France, Iran and the UK have thier own pages now.90.244.94.220 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also the American-led intervention in Syria page now.90.244.94.220 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been for a while. SantiLak (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Expand it and make it a more in depth coverage of America's role in the war (all those cruise missiles, etc).90.244.94.220 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now Turkey has a parallel page too. The parallel attempt to sanction the page creator was archived without action. How do we close this action? Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There should be an article summarizing all actions against ISIS, articles about the American−led coalitions in Iraq and Syria, and articles about the actions of Iran and Russia in Iraq and Syria. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't buy all the cloak-and-dagger theories about the creation of this page, and I think DocumentError has had his say about them and should leave off for a bit, but I do think that Military intervention against Islamic State is the right article to cover this material. Talk of 'separate theatres' ignores the reality on the ground, that the border between Iraq and Syria is non-existent for the purposes of this conflict, since the territory on either side is controlled by IS, not the theoretically-sovereign states involved. GoldenRing (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is in the different coalitions involved in Iraq and Syria. That's the only way in which the Iraq-Syria border matters, but it causes an extremely important distinction between the 2 theaters. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- also the relationship between coalition forces and local authorities. There is a strong relationship between the U.S./coalition and the governments of Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan; meanwhile, a fairly tenuous relationship between the U.S./coalition and rebel forces like the YPG and FSA in Syria, and a very poor relationship between the U.S./coalition and other forces in Syria, such as the Syrian government and the PKK (to say nothing of al Qaeda, which the U.S. is actively striking in Syria). The two theaters are different even though the border is functionally nonexistent; the sovereign states on either side of that imaginary line have completely different legal and political realities. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: Deleting this article is senseless, stupid, and ignorant. I was appalled to see that it is even being considered. I think there is perfectly good reason to have an article on America's intervention, and one about international intervention. This article could have more info about the politics behind deciding to intervene, and it can also be specific about America's actions as time moves on. This article must be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.202.51 (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the article 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq proposed for deletion here has continued to grow into a pretty comprehensive article. The 2014 military intervention against ISIL was trimmed down to be a summary of the various interventions. The intervention in Syria vs Iraq is very different with both different ground and international partners, the Americans and ISIL being almost the only common elements. Anyway there is zero chance of article deletion here so hopefully some Admin will close this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it will stay open for the seven days such discussions are usually left open, then closed if the admin who gets to it thinks consensus has been reached. GoldenRing (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&oldid=1137559153"