Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Map of Iraq showing four-location deployment of Qods Force in summer 2014, as per article. may be able to help!
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)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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.)
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)
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)
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☯01:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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 intelligence officials also have boosted their joint operations with Iran inside Iraq, according to a Hizbollah commander who had fought in border areas with Syria."DocumentError (talk) 03:57, 1 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)
Referencing and citation: not checked
