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

• Bulleted list item

2014 added for this one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

---

Proposed Merger

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 Merge nom withdrawn with creation of Iranian-led intervention in Iraq.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

Opinion in Brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

---

Systemic Bias

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

Opinion in Brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Israel, please see previous discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title workshopping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose (mostly) The actions of the American-led Force in Iraq are unique. They are primarily covered by the press in that manner. "International intervention in Iraq" could be a great article, but it should be a different article than this one. This article should just focus on the American-led Force. Juno (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Iran flag from Infobox

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

Iranian-led intervention in Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Cleanup Reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

what links here

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

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

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

Who are the ground partners in the American-led intervention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom subject to the bottom of the listings.

UK is one of the leading contributors to this intervention and yet it is being subjected to the bottom of the heap while Australia is being flagged up as some kind of junior partner to the US. Britain is one of the world's great powers and her involvement is way more significant to readers than Australia's, additionally Britain is contributing more than Australia. I shall make the necessary amendments, placing Britain and other British related matters underneath the United States.

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

Yeah and I just reverted your revert. Until this article is locked I will keep doing it. "Alphabetically" ordered is a poor excuse to put the UK at the back, does not fool me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

How dare you accuse me of being a reason for sanctioning. Perhaps people should have not been so ignorant and contemptuous towards the British contribution, I was doing my duty as a modifier to ensure Wikipedia was accurate which it was not thanks to a lot of bias against the UK. Think before you type sir. VeryangryBrit (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Start date

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