Talk:Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Syrian-led intervention in Iraq

I propose creating an article titled "Syrian-led intervention in Iraq" to cover June's airstrikes by the Syrian Arab Air Force in Anbar. DocumentError (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would advise otherwise. Syria's Government military is a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War as is ISIS. Syrian actions against ISIS are a part of that war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

please do not delete 7,000 bytes of data without discussion

I put a lot of time into this article and I hope people come here to improve it. I would just ask you initiate a discussion before you delete half of it. Thank you! DocumentError (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I explained my edits in the summary. Please see my talk page for more explanation. SantiLak (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Be Careful

In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627865208 US Sec of State John Kerry's words were attributed as a direct quote to Canadian Minister Baird as Canada's official position. Please try to be more careful with reading sources - it will save all kinds of conflict, like the Hezbollah request for comment below. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Prime Minister Foreign Reactions

The Israeli pm is not opposing the Iranian intervention in Iran in his statements, he is just reiterating his opposition to Iran. His quote "to defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war" is just him opposing Iran again. It is not him opposing Iranian intervention against ISIS but is him saying that the international community can not fight against ISIS and not also against Iran, he is trying to describe Iran as a greater evil. I deleted it because it isn't relevant if he is just talking about his opposition against Iran. If this article were How much Netanyahu hates Iran then it would definitely be relevant, but not in a reactions section to the intervention which he is not talking about. SantiLak (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal of Israel reaction - The context of the quote makes it clear he was referring to the Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. The context is within a 22 paragraph speech so it is impossible to include a full account in the article. The sentence is sufficient. DocumentError (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal of Israel Reaction per DocumentError. A reference to the intervention is good enough to be included, especially since Israel and Iran are staunch enemies. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a reaction to the Iranian led intervention in Iraq or is this a reaction to Military intervention in Iraq by members of the UN who have not yet done anything to change Iran's status as a threshold power nuclear? You have used primary source does not answer that. We could debate this back and forth but that would be new analysis on our part in violation of the rules on original research. Above I do not see a common sense reason to ignore all rules. If you can not find a reliable secondary source that verifies this position I oppose the removal but if you can not then this should be removed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  It is neither, he is jus reiterating his opposition to Iran by saying that they are worse than ISIS. - SantiLak (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point. It really doesn't matter. The point was it's original research. If they can't provide a reliable secondary source that supports their position it should be removed. The source provided does doesn't offer verification. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I second that. - SantiLak (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Removal of Israel Reaction The sentence makes it clear that he is reiterating his opposition to Iran, not to his intervention. I find it hard to see how someone could think he is actually talking about their intervention. He is just trying to use the international community's fear of ISIS to his advantage in calling Iran a greater evil. While he may actually oppose the intervention, that statement does not support it. I went through this with DocError a week or so ago and then they seemed ok with the removal of the Israeli section then because of the reasons that I cited. I am not trying to degrade the article, the country reaction does not belong because Netanyahu wasn't talking about Iran's intervention but his general opposition to Iran and that does not make it enough for inclusion. - SantiLak (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal was originally going to go with support as primary sourcing can't be interpretative, however, on a quick Google search it appears there are sufficient RS that are interpreting his speech as a reference to the Iranian intervention e.g. [1] BlueSalix (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources that support this then anyone be free to provide one. The one you provide does not do that. The source you provide has Netanyahu react to the USA's intervention against ISIS, it has him mention Iran, but it doesn't have him mention Iran's intervention in Iraq. This source like the primary source used offers no verification for any claim that Israel has offered any reaction to the Iranian lead intervention against ISIS in Iraq.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I already cited one early this morning. Atsme☯^Consult 14:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That also offers no verifiability. If you read your source there is a complete and utter lack of any mention of Iran's involvement in Iraq. Further you will find that the comments here attributed as a reaction to Iran's involvement in Iraq are attributed by this source as being directed at the current ongoing Iranian nuclear program talks.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And what do you think a "Charm Offensive" refers to. The article cited above from the Washington Times compares Iran to ISIS and says that "they all agree that the world should be an Islamist hill, but they all want to be, each of them wants to be the king of the hill." The battle to be on the top of the hill is obviously a reference to Iran choosing to fight ISIS in Iraq. The quote is not original resource because the only thing in the section would be the quote. There would be no analysis of the quote by Wikipedia editors. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the charm offensive? Do you want me to reach to the primary source and analyse that? I will point out this comment takes place while Netanyahu is being critical of Iran and it's nuclear ambitions. What have we achieved here? Nothing. My analysis is different from yours. And you're suggesting that taking a quote from the Washington Times wouldn't be analysis is wrong as well. In such a situation the Washington times effectively be a primary source. The Washington Times discusses that quote in the paragraph before it. They do not suggest that Netanyahu is offering a reaction to Iran's military involvement in Iraq. This is your analysis that is what the quote means. The Washington times suggest this comment means that while ISIS poses a threat and must be defeated, they are not the only threat. The source does not back up your position. Find a source that does.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

PointsofNoReturn - what do you think about possibly replacing the current Netanyahu statement with the following: “And I think by far the worst outcome that could come out of this is that one of these factions — Iran — would come out with nuclear weapons capability,” Netanyahu asserted. “That would be a tragic mistake. It would make everything else pale in comparison.” Or how about, "When your enemies are fighting each other, weaken both." RS for both quotes here: [2] ? Atsme☯^Consult 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the second quote the most because it displays Netanyahu's opinion that both Iran and ISIS are enemies and is obviously relevant to the conflict between Iran and ISIS. I would take the second quote you suggested over the current one too because it is more specific towards the conflict than the previous statement. What do you think, Serialjoepsycho? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that is very clearly about Iran in this conflict. I would actually use the first quote. The fear of Iran walking away as threshold nuclear weapons state seems to be a high factor in Netanyahu commenting that "When your enemies are fighting each other, weaken both." Iran and Israel have mutually been enemies for decades. The threat of a nuclear Iran seems to be a strong reason for Israel to want to weaken it. You could hardly call it NPOV if you choose only the harshest portion of the response.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps both quotes can be used.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you think, @SantiLak:? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I kind of feel that the second quote is more related to the Iran-ISIS conflict because it specifically mentions them fighting. However, I am okay with using both quotes in the name of compromise. There are other issues about the article that are more prevalent at the moment (like an administrative discussion on the issue noticeboard and a possible merger with another article).PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It does mention them fighting. It also lacks context. To choose the most venomous comments but not include context would be far from neutral.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I am okay with using both quotes. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So do I have a green light to change the Israel segment to include one or both of the above quotes? Atsme☯^Consult 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am okay if we use both quotes. What do you think, DocumentError? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good compromise! DocumentError (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There's still a slight problem with the new wording. "Benjamin Netanyahu, made known his opposition to American intervention in Iraq." That's not exactly what the source says. Other sources that we have looked at have shown that Netanyahu does support the effort to defeat ISIS. Allow me to quote the source, "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his opposition to widescale American intervention in the Iraq crisis." The keyword here being widescale. Saying that Netanyahu opposes the widescale American intervention in Iraq is different than saying that Netanyahu opposes the American led intervention in Iraq. Widescale is qualitative.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Would adding the word "widescale" make it a better sentence. Then a sentence that Israel supports the general American intervention could be added afterwards for clarification. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: I see no actually need in going into the excess of adding an extra sentence. If you do by all means. I don't that as necessary. Actually I was just pointing out the issue with the source vs what is actually written. But yes adding the word "widescale" to the appropriate part would seem to fix it. But of course what is your view on the issue?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Netanyahu didn't say "widescale", the writer of the article did and as editors, we're supposed to stay away from copyvio. I citied another source that validates my wording of the situation. Atsme☯^Consult 14:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you see a copyvio issue then by all means choose a different word. You can't however leave it as is because the sources do not support it as is. The first and the new source you have recently added don't support that Netanyahu made known his opposition to American intervention in Iraq.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To be more specific about your second source, [3] it is also qualitive. It doesn't say or suggest that "made known his opposition to American intervention in Iraq". He made known his opposition to the US cooperating with Iran.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• This new change remains equally problematic. Yes Netanyahu has made his concerns known, Iraq has a Shi’ite-led Government,and Iran is an ally of IRAQ. However Netanyahu has not made known any concern about America using military force to help the Shi’ite-led government of Iraq who happened to be an ally of Iran. He has expressed a concern about America cooperating with Iran. He supports the plan to fight the Islamic State[4] [5] Review the RT source. It makes the matter fairly clear saying, "Netanyahu emphasized his country’s fears that any sort of cooperation with Iran – not just in Iraq but at the negotiating table – would cause the international community to drop its collective guard, helping the Islamic state to acquire nuclear weapons." This is his opposition. This is his concern.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative During an NBC television interview in June, Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made known his concerns over any American cooperation with Iran.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Too broad. "Any" implies that he would not want America to cooperate in a cease fire. What I wrote works perfectly. Atsme☯^Consult 15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

America wouldn't have to cooperate with Iran on a ceasefire and a ceasefire goes is contrary to the goal of both Iranian and American goals. Regardless however you can write it in anyway you wish just as long as you do so in a way that support what the sources say.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the Article that need to be addressed

1. The map is below the bold heading Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and gives the impression that Iran is grabbing territory all over Syria and Iraq. Yes there is a small caption below, but perhaps a better image can be found. 2. The Iranian intervention is not just against ISIL, but has been ongoing for some time. It is designed to influence the Iraq government. 3. Iraqi army and Kurdish casualties are not (generally) related to the small Iranian intervention, but to the civil war in Iraq. These forces are not fighting for or led by Iran. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In respect of point 3, I agree with Legacypac that Iraqi army and Kurdish casualties should be removed from the infobox. In respect of point 1, I agree in principal that the image is not ideal, but oppose change of image until a better one is positively identified. In respect of point 2, I would note the American intervention has also been going on for some time and is designed to influence the Iraq government. DocumentError (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We should probably pick a name. Lol. The first sentence they are the Islamic state. The second sentence they are ISIL. Under the Map up top they are ISIS. Then in the article after that we switch between the Islamic state and ISIS. While I'm sure right now most everyone will be familiar with these names but I wonder what of 8 years from now?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The map point is a good point. Since this is about the Iraq effort perhaps a map with only ISIS controlled areas in Iraq?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

here is a good map that we might be able to use just for Iraq. If we can agree on it, we can add it now. - SantiLak (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho there has been extended name debate at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (of which this article is a daughter) and the consensus is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is what we call them (not "Islamic State" or ISIS or IS), which leads naturally to ISIL being the standard acronym. Not only has consensus been reached, but further debate is banned, and one editor was topic banned for 3 months for saying he was going to start another move request soon. Others have been officially warned and the warnings logged under the ISIL sanctions page. Therefore I suggest we NOT try to debate the right name and go with the agreed ISIL spelled out or short form.

The Iraq map is better than the current ISIL map because it is three muted colors and can be labeled "zones of control in Iraq" or similar, not a big red patch across the region. Are there any images that would show actual Iranians doing something? Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with SantiLak's proposed map change. As re LP's question, TTBOMK, no photos in public circulation exist of Qods Force operators other than pass-in-reviews. DocumentError (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thank you so much for your warning and here's why your warning was ill conceived: you have far and away completely and totally missed the point of what I said. I'll point this out again. This article uses the name ISIS. The article uses the name ISIL. This article uses the name ISIS. This article uses the name Islamic state. In your haste to not have a discussion about the naming you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Further when discussing an already standing consensus it is helpful to just go ahead and link to that consensus instead mentioning that is is somewhere on one of two pages.This discussion is not a violation of the sanctions.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Serialjoepsycho, there's really no reason to insinuate other editors might be "banned" merely for asking a question or making a side comment. This has a chilling effect on discussion. DocumentError (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Serialjoepsycho perhaps you misunderstood me. I prefer that there be consistency. Sorry I should have provided the link to concensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text and see User:PBS's comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#An_RM_to_ISIS.3F and elsewhere on where he closes discussions. I'm just saying the debate is over about the name of ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Joe is a magnet for articles with name issues. Atsme☯^Consult 18:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the matter is that Serialjoepsycho is indicating that the phrase "ISIS", "ISIL" or Islamic State should be standardized throughout this article to one of the three options. Right now, we have all three terms being used. I don't think he was proposing another page move. I've raised the same issue on another article's talk page [6]. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree it should be standardized. The community has settled on ISIL in related articles after extended debate. I am not suggesting anyone should be banned in this thread or that we need yet another protracted debate on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Then lets just change all the references in to the article from ISIS to ISIL. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Save for two instances in the "International reaction to Iranian-led intervention" I have changed ISIS over to ISIL. Do we change Islamic State over to ISIL as well or would that just be pedantic?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would just leave Islamic State. Its in both names for the group anyway. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

agree with PointsofNoReturn DocumentError (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines as well. ISIL, the IS standing for Islamic state and all.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State is a very problematic name, not just a short version of ISIL. It implies control over all muslims worldwide. This is why at least 5 move requests to versions of "Islamic State" for the ISIL article have been rejected. Please standardize to ISIL only except in direct quotes and in reference links to preserve the links functionality. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah Included as Belligerent

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per request made at WP:AN/RFC. There is consensus for including Hezbollah as a belligerent faction inside Iraq but reliable sources are lacking. Only two reliable sources have so far been presented that provide direct reports of Hezbollah being involved in combat in Iraq: "Fighters from the Hezbollah Brigades teamed up with the Kurdish Peshmerga to halt the Islamic State's advance on Amerli, a town in Salahaddin province..." [7] and "Commander from Lebanon's Bekaa Valley killed in battle near Mosul" [8], but an inclusion in this Wikipedia article's infobox as a recognised belligerent faction in Iraq would need more reporting. The infobox is meant to sum up information presented in the article, so once the section about Hezbollah's role in the Iranian-led intervention addresses their role in active combat backed up by multiple reliable sources without synthesis, it would merit including a Hezbollah icon in the conflict infobox. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Hezbollah mentions have been repeatedly deleted from this article. Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox? (Edit - since these are lightly trafficked articles I'm adding a RfC tag to allow a more rapid input of thoughts. At the time tag was added there was 1 Support, 1 Oppose.) DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion in Brief

• Support Multiple RS indicate presence of Hezbollah combatants, see: Al Jazeera [9], The Daily Beast [10], the Christian Science Monitor [11], etc. Also: "Hizbollah [sic] intelligence officials also have boosted their joint operations with Iran inside Iraq, according to a Hizbollah [sic] commander ..." [12] DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources do point out that "the extent of the group’s involvement is far from clear." They all reference the death of the same commander and while the commander is a member of Hezbollah that does not mean we should draw our own conclusions and assume that Hezbollah is also intervening. Iran and Hezbollah cooperate extensively and for all we know the commander could have been working with Shia militias or Iranian forces or Iraqi Hezbollah. It does not mean that Hezbollah itself is intervening. SantiLak (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... that's certainly not what I read but I respect your interpretation. DocumentError (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Hezbollah is heavily supported by Iran. Hezbollah is taking a part in the conflict both in Iraq and Syria, and the death of commander is proof enough that Hezbollah in is Iraq. Even though Hezbollah is doing most of its work in Syria, that does not mean that Hezbollah is not also a belligerent in Iraq. Because Hezbollah is part of the conflict and is essentially an ally of Iran, and the article is about an Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, the article should include Hezbollah as a belligerent. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is nothing to vote on here. I just read all the supplied sources and NONE of them say Hezbollah is fighting in Iraq. Several say specifically that Hezbollah is fighting in Lebanon and active in guarding holy sites in Syria. One guy killed does not equal Hezbollah as a belligerent partner of Iran any more than an American killed fighting for ISIL makes the Americans a partner of ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hizbollah [sic] intelligence officials also have boosted their joint operations with Iran inside Iraq" [13] DocumentError (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence operations NOT equal to at war, or everyone would be at war with everyone. Did you read the next sentence (page 2) in your source “We have had a presence there for a long time, of course, but it’s increasing for obvious reasons,” said the commander. He declined to comment on whether Hizbollah has taken on a combat role in Iraq." which debunks the idea of making them a belligerent in Iraq? No comment is not a RS for putting an organization into a war. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. "Intelligence operations" is a military activity and gives an actor belligerency status in a conflict. DocumentError (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I try to work cooperatively with you but there just is no reasoning possible since you clearly prefer to read new things into plain English. Intelligence operations are conducted by many countries in many other countries, especially hot spots. For example the Russians conduct spying in the US but they are not at war with the US. Until you can provide a valid RS I am sure that editors who are not so bias toward Syria and Hezbollah will keep reverting your edits. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your passionate opinion, Legacypac! DocumentError (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support provided the information is reliably sourced. Atsme☯^Consult 01:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support[14]Hezbollah meets the the definition of belligerent and sources do indicate their involvement.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support brought by the bot for the previous RfC, stayed for this one ... refs aren't slam dunk but clear enough that they shouldn't be ignored BlueSalix (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Before I vote, I'm sure Hezbollah is a Lebanese fighting wing? They are strongly allied with Iran and if they did play a significant role it must be noted that they fight on the Lebanese side of the border. --Acetotyce (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a Hezbollah colonel ended up killed "in a battle" in Mosul from the Lebanese side of the border. A masterful trick of physics, if that's the case. Also, "Hizbollah [sic] intelligence officials also have boosted their joint operations with Iran inside Iraq, according to a Hizbollah [sic] commander who had fought in border areas with Syria." [15] DocumentError (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate to vote on this. We follow reliable sources, not editor opinions here for content inclusion. In this situation we will need strong sources, not antidotal sources that require synthesis, to support Lebanese terrorists as an organization (not individuals) getting militarily involved following the lead of Iran in an intervention that Iran denies is happening. If someone can reliably source that, there is no need for a vote, but everything I've seen inserted and deleted so far here and in the parent article was speculation, synthesis, or just plain error not supported by supplied sources. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, it's a consensus-building discussion. DocumentError (talk) 17:31, 10 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.

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: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq → 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq – The article was created from a discussion at Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq and the current title mirrors that one. However, the current title suggests Iran is leading a coalition like the USA, but this does not seem to be the case. The current title could be seen as POV to elevate the Iran intervention on par with the American one by suggesting a non-existent coalition. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Note I am inserting this as a proper "Requested Move" with the template after getting some advice on how to do this correctly. I marked the point in the comments below where this template was inserted for clarity as previous commenters would not have seen the rational in this template Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose Move of Article to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq Issue #1 Iran fought a long war with Iraq, so 2014 is required. Issue #2 Iran is leading which countries exactly in its intervention in Iraq? Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (conditional) Current name provides naming consistency with American-led intervention in Iraq. While a better name could be sourced, it should be done in tandem with the parallel article on this theater of conflict. The 8-year war of the 1980s is widely known as the Iran-Iraq War in the English language and it's unlikely anyone would mistake that for something given the small-sounding name "intervention." Iran is leading multiple non-state actors in this intervention, which is why the article is called "Iranian-led." DocumentError (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The move of this article could work, but that only assumes that no other power besides Iran is mentioned in the article about Iran's intervention. The article about the American-led intervention cannot change because the US is part of a coalition. Removing -led from the article essentially marginalizes the contributions of all other nations involved (For example, France recently bombed an ISIS depot in Iraq). In essence, my issue is this: the move could only work if the above discussion about Hezbollah results in not adding Hezbollah to the list of belligerents. We will have to wait for that RFC to end in order to discuss a move in this discussion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Iran can't very well lead the Iraq army and its local allies or the Iraqi Kurds and local allies. Hezbolla is a faction in Lebanon, not a state. What States could possibly follow Iran into Iraq? The US does lead a group of nations. Iran leads no one. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents are considered any group, state or non-state, that fights in a war. That is why ISIS is a belligerent. We are debating above if Hezbollah is a belligerent in the battle, and regardless of your opinion that Hezbollah is not a belligerent and my opinion that Hezbollah is a belligerent, we still need to wait for the discussion about Hezbollah to end. Once that ends, then we can talk about the move. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Great points, and agreed. DocumentError (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not "2014 Interventions in Iraq" which covers all of it? If more well sourced information comes along to justify off-shoots that need separate articles, so be it. Atsme☯^Consult 12:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea but then the content disputes start over what should and shouldn't be in the article so I think we should just wait and see. SantiLak (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to do that since the interventions are separate (even if the US and Iran are secretly coordinating everything, which is possible). I would leave the articles separate for now, although your idea is good if Iran and the US start working together. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is premature while an RFC questioning Hezbollah's involvement as a belligerent is open.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the Pahlevun has just effected another title move on this article. I think this was inadvertent and he/she may not have realized there is an active discussion on it. I have GF undone the move and let him/her know this discussion is occurring. DocumentError (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Before you start adding spokes to the wheel, I believe it makes perfect sense to start with a hub - 2014 Intervention in Iraq - and then add the spokes. The 2014 Iranian-led intervention is a spoke in the hub, as is U.S. Intervention, Hezbollah's involvement, and so forth. Spokes can be sections in the main article until they are able to stand on their own with reliable sources. Splintering the various factions into multiple articles before they are ready does nothing but create stubs that may never be expanded. The latter is a waste of valuable energy, and dilutes the primary focus - 2014 Intervention in Iraq. I liken it to framing a house before you have laid the foundation. Atsme☯^Consult 21:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. The key issue is whether or not the Iranian and American interventions are separate operations. In addition, there is already an article titled 2014 military intervention against ISIS. Would that count as the main article? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea behind having a separate article for the iraq intervention was that there should be separate pages for interventions in each country but the reason there is a US intervention and iran intervention page is due to a dispute between some editors. The intended main page for the Iraq main page isn't really 2014 military intervention against ISIS but I think the idea was to have one page specifically for the iraq intervention but as I said the reason there isn't is because of a dispute. I think one page would be good but again there is still the disputes over whether the operations are separate and whether certain countries such as Syria or groups like Hezbollah should be included. - SantiLak (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I thought that one article should be created as well and later if needed it could be split. But that discussion has been had and led to the creation of this page. There's no problem having that discussion again but, the other editors previously involved should be brought in.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

PointsofNoReturn, if the article is going to focus on the 2014 interventions in Iraq, (it could also be titled 2014 military interventions in Iraq to be more specific), it easily justifies a separate section for each intervention. At this point, I don't see where separate articles are justified or necessary for the same topic. Based on what I've gleaned from reading some of the arguments, some of the involved factions have different views about each other and their respective interventions, but that isn't justification for separate articles, or "sub-articles" on the same subject. Focus on the hub. The prose will describe why there is military intervention - it sets the stage - and then each section will describe the various factions in a neutral fashion using reliable sources. You will find that by keeping the sections organized with information presented in a well-balanced manner, it will eliminate a lot of the debate and confusion. It will also make the article much easier to read and understand because there will be less jumping around from article to article. Atsme☯^Consult 11:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and a few minor players are all working together. Their side doesn't have a name. If we had to pick one leader, it would be Iran. If I better name for this side of the conflict comes up I am all for it. Juno (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Juno BlueSalix (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (end of comments made before converting to a proper Requested Move with template Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC))

One editor (who self identifies as being from Iran) previously suggests Hezbollah (Lebanon) is being lead by Iran, but so far I have seen no reliable sources that Hezbollah is even in Iraq as an organization or has any intent to go there. Individuals decisions to go on jihad/get a new job/act as a mercenary does not equal to country/organization level involvement. If Hezbollah declares or is reliably sourced to be involved and they declare that they are joining an Iranian-led group, we can always revisit the title.

Further, the idea that there is an Iranian-led intervention may be the reason that hundreds of Iraqi and Kurdish army casualties were added to the infobox, presumably because Iran is somehow "leading" the two local government forces. Similarly counting up general ISIL casualties and attributing them to the Iranian intervention is very misleading.

The 2014 part of the title is to differentiate current events from the many other Iranian/Persian interventions in Iraq over thousands of years of recorded history. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC))

• Oppose While you make a number of salient points, I don't agree that a move is necessary. I thinks it's been reasonably verified below that Hezbollah is a belligerent in this intervention. While it's not been shown that Hezbollah has been led by Iran I do feel it's been shown reasonable that Hezbollah has worked with Iran in this matter.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis Serialjoepsycho? Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Attn Anyone Thinking of closing this. This was started as a proper RM just today but was listed in error as ready to be closed. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps but I find it acceptable. It's been indicated that Hezbollah is an ally of Iran, That Hezbollah is supplied weapons by Iran, and that Hezbollah has used Iranian weapons in Iraq. These partners are active in Iraq to take on ISIS. I find it justifiable to IAR.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac one of the reasons for advertising the move at WP:RM is that many editors with experience of article moves, article title policy and the supporting naming conventions, watch WP:RM#Current discussions and contribute to listed discussion. The page will be advertised for at least seven days and then closed, probably by an administrator some time after the seventh day. It is usually quite fast but sometimes due to a backlog it can take some additional days before a discussion is closed (remember there is no deadline). -- PBS (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

user:PBS i think my post was misunderstood. Some other editor posted to an admin notice board this AM that this RM was ready to close. I am saying it is not ready to close as it is on day 1 or 2 not day 7. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 10 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.

Start date

While I am sure that Iran did move in 500 troops this June, were those the first men they put in? Juno (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

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.

---

Should the section "Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq" be included in this article? (Edit - since these are lightly trafficked articles I'm adding a RfC tag to allow a more rapid input of thoughts. At the time tag was added there was 1 Support, 1 Mild Oppose, 1 Oppose.) DocumentError (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion in Brief

• Support A major theme of these two interventions has been the opinion of each party toward the other and the lack of cooperation. Since we have two articles on this campaign that are totally separated by nation we need to put this important, contextual information somewhere. (I had previously cross-included a version in the American-led intervention in Iraq, but to de-escalate a serious confrontation that had occurred, voluntarily self-reverted that addition.) DocumentError (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This kind of section has really always been reserved for international reactions by governments to an intervention, not for a discussion on how two countries are not cooperating or how a country and a group are reacting to another countries intervention. This kind of information should really just be shortened and put into an international reactions section in the American intervention in Iraq page. Not the whole long section but as an addition to an international reactions section. SantiLak (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@SantiLak: That is most likely the solution. Are you okay with the new international section now? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose - I believe it should not be a part of this article because of the fact that their reaction to any American act will be seen as patriotic and negative. Hezbollah and Iran both tend to criticize America & its NATO Allies quite often, articles like these need to maintain neutrality and not keep things one sided. --Acetotyce (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe we can report facts when they occur, whether those facts are non-partisan or not. Our only obligation is to be neutral, not to force our subjects to be neutral. DocumentError (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support As DocumentError stated, one of the biggest parts of the Iranian intervention is the reaction to the American-led intervention. The two interventions are not occurring in a vacuum; rather, it is likely that both Iranian and American counterparts are talking to each other about their interventions. This is a crucial part of the Iranian intervention. Perhaps another section could be about the American reaction to the Iranian intervention. My only problem with the new section is the title: perhaps it should be changed to simply Relation to the American-led intervention in Iraq (even better titles along the same line of thinking are possible too) so that all international aspects of the Iranian Intervention could be discussed in one section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Great point, PointsofNoReturn; I concur with your recommendation to modify the title. DocumentError (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support and agree with PointsofNoReturn's proposal for title modification, and keeping intl. aspects in one section carefully maintaining neutrality and avoiding undue weight. Atsme☯^Consult 01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support if for no other reason that cooperating with U.S. or not, is a factor in the overall scheme of the U.S. led challenge to the Islamic State. The concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has come up often in this issue, and is a major concern to U.S. citizens and its government. Is Iran an ally? Not on most things. Can they be trusted here? I'd argue no - that they will turn on the U.S. once (and if) the IS goals are met. That being the case, it is part of the conversation, part of a concern and is not going away. The fact of Hezbullah is even more difficult, because they outwardly claim they are not allied with the U.S. even though the goals here may be similar. Do we want U.S forces letting their guards down while fighting IS? This too makes this a necessary part of the dialogue. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - brought here by the bot - based on cited references seems like a topical and appropriate addition BlueSalix (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This article is about the Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Nothing in this section indicates that the Iranian-led invasion was a response to the American led invasion. The only tie that this has to the Iranian-led intervention is this is an opinion by Iran and Iran leads the intervention. While there is a tie, we are making an encyclopedia, and not playing 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. The proposer, DocumentError, seems to be indicating that they tried to put this in the American-led article. Relevant and contextual information does have a place somewhere. And this is relevant and contextual to an article about the campaigns in Iraq. This however is not an article about the campaigns in Iraq. This is an article specifically about the Iranian-led campaign in Iraq. This is neither relevant nor contextual to the Iranian-led campaign in Iraq. There is no consolation prize to give. If you feel that this is contextual and important to wikipedia then take it to where it would be appropriate. While you have thus far got the vote for it's inclusion here, you have not got the consensus for it's inclusion here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose What does the Iranian intervention which according to this article predates the American intervention have to do with Iran or Hezbollah's reaction to the American-led intervention? Nothing. If there is something worthwhile to add it belongs on the article about the American-led intervention. If the reaction is military force like shooting American planes out of the sky, that would be notable for inclusion here, but the standard "America sucks and we hate them" response is not worthy to document on the correct article, and it would be an even greater error to put it in the wrong article. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If both interventions are happening at the same time, then it is a pretty big deal what each countries' reactions are to each other. International reactions to the corresponding intervention is definitely relevant here, and it does not have to be military responses. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not see how reactions to subjects of different articles are relevant here. Could you further explain and add your wikipedia policy rationale?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Out of scope, an article should use the most general scope possible. In this case, Iran's reaction to the American-intervention, which is competing with its own intervention, would be part of that general scope. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an essay, not policy or a guideline. To quote that essay, "Editors are advised to stay on topic, and to ensure that articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information." To quote another essay this essay references WP:TOPIC, "If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic." There's really a question of undue weight. This subject has a very casual (if not barely casual) relation to the articles subject matter. Being paired with "International reaction to Iranian-led intervention" actually creates a false balance. These responses were not given in response to international reaction to the Iranian-led intervention. While this is an attempt to give equal validity to significant points of view, these points of view are not significant here. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

But we are not wandering off topic in this article. It is impossible to talk about the Iranian intervention without talking about the American intervention. Both interventions are intertwined and need to be discusses in the article. That is why the main section is political dimension and then has two subsections for the Iranian reaction to the American intervention with relation to its response to America and other nations' responses to Iran's intervention. Both interventions are important.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right. It would be impossible to talk about Iranian intervention without talking about the American intervention, but then of course that would be the Iranian intervention and American intervention as they relate to each other. This section only relates to the American intervention and not Iranian intervention. Both interventions are important. This is not important to the Iranian lead intervention. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a section on how they relate to each other? That could solve the problem. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How do they relate to each other?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If you can write a section on how this relates to the Iranian lead intervention you surely can explain it here..Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:29, 14 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.

Scope of Article

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.

---

There is information in this article that there have been clashes at the Iranian border and terrorist plots inside Iran. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/09/iran-says-it-s-under-attack-by-isis.html Yesterday User:Ericl started Islamist_insurgency_in_Iran. For better reader understanding maybe this article and that article should be merged or at least considered together and interlinked to deal with the growing Iran-ISIL conflict? Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This would seem to be the parent of that article at the very least.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There is an active RM on this page. Once that's been resolved, then we can discuss other RMs and merges. DocumentError (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a RM discussion. The question is should a merger be considered? Alternatively should we just simply interlink the two so that the reader of either two might benefit from the extended information on each page? There is no reason to postpone this discussion because another unrelated discussion is taking place.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually thrown aback by the title of that article Legacypac. An Islamist insurgency in Iran. If you want to spin that title on it's head you could use that as an alternative Title for the Iranian revolution. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the Daily Beast article the Iranian intervention caused ISIL to attack Iran, though ISIL seems happy to attack anyone without provocation. An attack on the Iranian border without a serious attempt to take territory seems like spill over of the Iraqi Insurgency. The attack on the convoy in Iraq is the insurgency. The attack on the eastern border of Iran by an unrelated group is just normal craziness in that region. So I'm not really seeing how the new article fits apart from other articles. Useful info for a merger though. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You make a good case for a merger. Would you like to wait til the other RFC's and ect close before opening a merge proposal?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully User:Ericl and User:David O. Johnson will join the conversation as they are the only contributors to the article other than me. With their informal consent we can avoid a drawn out formal process -maybe Ericl would request deletion of the other article once the material in fully incorporated here to his satisfaction. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I ran the reflinks script and did some copyediting so my contribution to the article is fairly minimal. The subject seems relatively insignificant; if the death toll was much higher, it would probably be significant enough to have its' own article. As it stands, I don't think there is currently enough info in the article to merit having a standalone article on the topic. I would support a merger. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, as you know - since you amended my most recent edit [16] - I am also a contributor to that article. For the record, I support a formal process for this and any future merger proposals so as to avoid the misunderstandings and ill-will we find are inevitably created on these highly contentious topics in their absence. DocumentError (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No, I wouldn't. Okay, let's pretend it's July 1940, and we're doing the article on World War II (I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but trust me on this). All sorts of things are happening, some of the smaller ones are going to become really big things, but we don't know it yet, and some things seem really big but will piffle out soon enough. WE don't KNOW yet. If you look at the REAL WW2 section here, you will notice that there are dozens of articles, and all the links are STILL not all sorted out (the 1940 Japanese Invasion of Indochina wasn't linked to anything until I made them two months ago), so let's wait a bit, shall we? The ISIS war (I tried to make a case for "Arab Winter" but got shot down) at the moment is much like WW2 in July 1940. There are battles here and there, and things seem to be getting worse all the time, but there doesn't seem to be much unity in the situation. In the current unpleasentness, ISIS and the Pakistani Taliban have made a formal alliance, and that small insurgent group that made the attacks the other day, used ISIS-like tactics. IT's too early to tell yet, and the other article is a glorified stubb. Things are very much in flux at the moment. Add more links, but keep both articlesEricl (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all reasons iterated by Ericl for opposing any merge. DocumentError (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reviewing the 4 sources the incidences related to Jaish-ul Adl don't seem to be related to ISIS. Seems to be a bit of a coatrack. What I would suggest is further research. If the ISIS related information is a part of this subject here consider putting it in this article. Consider as well moving any discussion of that articles content to that article's talk page. Again reviewing only the sources used in that article, Jaish-ul Adl attacks don't seem to be related to ISIS.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it have to do with Iraq? Because the article is about Iran's intervention in Iraq, not against ISIS. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That is Iran's intervention in Iraq against ISIS not Iran's intervention in Iraq against nothing. This is ISIS attacking Iran coming from Iraq.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I guess I am getting confused by the complexities of this article and all the moving parts. Perhaps there should be a higher-level discussion about this topic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Only two sources over there relate to ISIS and may pertain to this article. The others seem to actually reference a separate matter all together but anyway that topic has been opened over there. For over here It's all about those two ISIS sources.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There seems to be enough material for both articles and many elements of the islamist insurgency in Iran seem to pre-date ISIS. Juno (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what's being opposed since nothing has really been proposed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that we were testing the waters to see how advisable a merger would be at this time. Juno (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was Deleted.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:25, 24 November 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.

RFC: Military intervention against ISIS 2014 in Iraq

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.

---

Should an article be created containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 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 Iraq? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief opinion

Please briefly give your opinion and explain whySerialjoepsycho (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I felt 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq should encompass all countries' efforts in Iraq, but since that apparently lacked consensus, I don't see the virtue of duplicating content on this page and the U.S. coalition page -- especially since 2014 military intervention against ISIS can function as an umbrella. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Wait This is probably a good proposal but we have multiple, overlapping RfCs occurring. We need to get some of these wrapped-up first or the level of overlapping edits will become hopelessly confusing. DocumentError (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I think that the American-led effort and the other efforts after different enough (and well covered enough) to merit different articles. Would be worth revisiting when things are move developed and seeing how closely they overlap. Juno (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support & Merge as per Serialjoepsycho for reasons that seem too apparent to require explanation BlueSalix (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support, while the different campaigns by differing non-alligned/allied nations/coalitions should retain separate article, a disambiguate page might be useful; like a Intervention against ISIS page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Wait per DocumentError PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose An article exists about the entire intervention against ISIS both in Iraq and Syria. There's no point for so many levels of redundancy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my reasons under discussion that convinced the proponent against the idea. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Discusion

Please discuss the matter here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Too many RFC's going on at once. Can we slow down a bit? This is getting Confusing. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• ^I agree. One active RfC at a time. The purpose of an RfC is to achieve consensus, not deflect from it. Atsme☯^Consult 02:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• There is no policy on one RFC per article. This RFC has no effect on the other two RFC's. The other two RFC's have no effect on this RFC. We are not in a vacum here. While these 3 RFC are opened other discussion are and can take place. Do those other discussions confuse you as well? The only difference being that this solicits uninvolved editors where discussion here involve editors already here and involved. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is complex - but AFAIK the 2014 military intervention against ISIS was modified against objections to add Iran, Syria and maybe Russia. So then 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq got going and there was also a American-led intervention in Syria that got going before that - they are sister articles since there are different players in the conflicts. Someone disliked that on ideological grounds so started 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. As it stands now the 2014 military intervention against ISIS is the overarching article with group with coalition-theatre specific articles supporting that with more details. We don't need to insert another layer of complexity ith 2014 military intervention in Iraq and 2014 military intervention in Syria. We already have Syria Civil War and Iraq Insurgency for the local conflicts. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going wait a while before I make a decision but I find your case compelling.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't all of these matters be collected under US aggression?Keith-264 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be a little more clear in your meaning and offer your reasoning?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not above that BlueSalix has offered support for this and support for the merger per me. Not as well that I have yet to either offer a position in support of this RFC or a position to support this merger.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Note two votes to wait. There is no actual justification to wait. This RFC does not overlap with the others. This does not have to be completed immediately if it results in consensus to take any action. If the results of this is positive it won't have any effect on the other RFC's.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Serialjoepsycho; I misattributed my opinion to your reasoning. It's corrected. BlueSalix (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ThanksSerialjoepsycho (talk) 03:38, 9 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.

Start date

While I am sure that Iran did move in 500 troops this June, were those the first men they put in? Juno (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Iran had men in by the beginning of this year. Can anyone confirm or deny? Juno (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

December airstrikes and other interesting stuff and good quotes worth adding http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/05/iran-conducts-air-strikes-against-isis-exremists-iraq Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move December 2014

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: Move consensus to move to Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present) PBS (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

---

2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq → 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq – or 2014 Iranian intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or 2014 Iranian intervention against ISIL. I don't understand how the title came to be. Iran has been a relatively late participant in the conflict in Iraq and, within this context, the natural leader would be Iraq. (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Iranian-led" gets 1 hit in news. There is a Global coalition within which Iraq is clearly a key member. Iran are not currently considered to be a member of this coalition. As far as I have heard, it is making unilateral interventions. The new title would still permit mention of parallel interventions. Nothing would be lost by the move and accurate reporting would be reclaimed. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC) gregkaye ✍♪ 13:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Tentative support article was named that way because all of the parallel articles are too and relative to the western forces Iran has been in longer, but I think you have a point. I have some reservations because I don't know how closely the Iranians have been working with the Russians in Iraq, or with the new American-led forces. I am also open to the idea that Iran is "leading" some of the various Shiite militant groups fighting inside of Iraq, but would want to see a source. Juno (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per OP.Casprings (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. This same request was opposed by several editors just two months ago at Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq/Archive 1#Requested move, so this seems to require more participation before going through. The page has been archiving sections older than 21 days, but that seems to be doing us a disservice in this case, and as the page is not that long, I have changed the archiving rate. Dekimasuよ! 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support any of the proposed titles that exclude "-led". Background: the current title came about because a self declared Iranian editor insisted that Iran was leading Hezbollah from Lebanon into Iraq (in a who is more important bid vs the American-led intervention article. That article was created after Iran was pushed into 2014 military intervention in Iraq article, which was originally just the US+UK+allies. Then stupid stuff happened like trying to put Iraqi & local militia forces under Iran, and counting all Iraqi and ISIL casualties in this article. Sure Iran is intervening in cooperation with Iraqi Govt and maybe the kurds at times, but this is not an Iran-led war and the US goes to great pains to say it is not coordinating with Iran. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Sources do not reflect the word led being attached to this title. Move fully supported. Mbcap (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I would close this move, but is it the intention to write a new article for 2015 or has the intervention finished? If the answer to these questions is no then it would probably be best to remove 2014 from the lead and disambiguate the title with "(2014–present)" -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Iran is still in Iraq and seems to be increasing its involvement but within the same context as this article. I don't think we need a new 2015 article, just adjust the name appropriately. Thanks - good pickup. Legacypac (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS Likewise, I don't know of any intention to start a 2015 article so I presume, by default, that the article should move to Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present). I think that if an author wanted to generate a separate article than a split could be proposed at a future date. Thanks for sorting this. GregKaye 12:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the Iranian intervention is rolling as strong as ever. I think that Iran's 2015 actions should be covered in this article, rather than splitting them into a 2015 article. I could go either way on "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" or "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (2014-present)". I favor the first possibility, because it is shortly, but not strongly so. Juno (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: Either Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present) or Iranian and Hezbollah intervention in Iraq. I don't think you can really call it "Iranian-led" when Hezbollah is the only other participant, and it really is a junior partner at best. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to close: This has been running for a full 30 days now instead of the normal 7 and it looks like Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present) is the agreed title given we are in 2015 now. Can User:PBS or another Admin close and make the change please? Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have made a manual move to Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present) on the grounds of unanimous support for a move and in reflection of 2.5 supporters of this title. Legacypac, while I am happy with closure PBS and regular RM admins can chose their timings.

Kudzu1 is there a reason to especially link Iran and Hezbollah. Geographically they are on opposite sides of Iraq. GregKaye 06:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If the sources support it. I think getting rid of the "led" part takes care a lot of the undue weight given to Hezbollah's role in this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2015 (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.

RT

Why is there a citation to RT, it is not reliable, why is RT cited? Spumuq (talq) 12:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)