Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:33, 9 January 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East 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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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!

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

On 9 October 2014, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq. The result of the discussion was no consensus to move.

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☯ 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)

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 - 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)

Requested move December 2014

It has been proposed in this section that Iranian intervention in Iraq (2014–present) be renamed and moved to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)
• CommentI 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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Iraq articles
• Mid-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• C-Class Iran articles
• Mid-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps in Map of Iraq showing four-location deployment of Qods Force in summer 2014, as per article.
• Misplaced Pages requested maps
• Requested moves