Talk:US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
 | On 13 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved to Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
 |
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Result
@Sakiv: What was unclear about my edit summary here that you preferred making this revert asking "what?"
This intervention ended in 2021 and its a no-brainer that Iraqi government's claim dating back to 2018 cannot be used for deciding the outcome of this conflict.
Keep the result blank until a secondary reliable source makes verdict after considering the entire conflict. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 13 March 2026
- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. the CODENAME argument does seem to control against this particular proposed title, but per Srnec, it does seem like a different descriptive title that better fits WP:CRITERIA is possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021) → Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq – This title would have the advantage of natural disambiguation. I unilaterally moved this article to that title in January, but it was recently moved back by @Kowal2701. –Gluonz talk contribs 23:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 09:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Imo the current title is more recognisable for our readers, though I guess it could confuse readers into thinking it was against the Iraqi government Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Kowal2701: I doubt that an average reader would immediately think of the specific phrase "US-led" when thinking about this intervention, so I believe that the current title of this article is meant to be a descriptive title rather than a commonly recognizable name. Regardless, WP:NATDIS overrides WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the parent article of this one is itself titled Operation Inherent Resolve, but that may be due to the apparent difficulty of coming up with a descriptive title that would not be excessively long, and WP:CONSISTENT does not apply here anyway insofar as this discussion concerns disambiguation.
- As for confusion regarding the target of the intervention, I personally do not think that the current title would necessarily cause readers to believe that it was aimed against the Iraqi government, but I am not too sure of what others may think. –Gluonz talk contribs 00:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support, Tbh, you've convinced me, WP:CONSUB favours the proposed title. If anyone wants to close this early, feel free Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Kowal2701: I suppose that, if WP:CONSISTENT indeed applies and supports the proposed title, this is specifically because that title is unambiguous – if the "consistent" title were to require parenthetical disambiguation but not the current title, WP:CONSISTENT would not apply (see its "Disambiguation" bullet point and the last subsection of WP:CONDAB). –Gluonz talk contribs 17:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support, Tbh, you've convinced me, WP:CONSUB favours the proposed title. If anyone wants to close this early, feel free Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- oppose per WP:CODENAME: Operational codenames generally make poor titles and this is definitely not widely know by the codename—blindlynx 14:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Blindlynx: That would suggest that the Operation Inherent Resolve article should be moved. Also, much of the argument that WP:CODENAME makes against the use of codenames as article titles seems to relate to the potential omission of the location of a given operation, but "Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq" clearly specifies a location. WP:CODENAME also mentions that inclusion of the timing of an operation is often preferable, but the sole reason for why the current title of this article includes a timeframe is that it happens to be ambiguous, requiring a time-based parenthetical disambiguator. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would support moving 'Operation Inherent Resolve' for the same reason. The current title is clear in terms of time frame location and what happen 'Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq' only has location—blindlynx 18:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Blindlynx: That would suggest that the Operation Inherent Resolve article should be moved. Also, much of the argument that WP:CODENAME makes against the use of codenames as article titles seems to relate to the potential omission of the location of a given operation, but "Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq" clearly specifies a location. WP:CODENAME also mentions that inclusion of the timing of an operation is often preferable, but the sole reason for why the current title of this article includes a timeframe is that it happens to be ambiguous, requiring a time-based parenthetical disambiguator. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per blindlynx. CNC (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I find both the current and proposed title confusing in light of our articles War against the Islamic State and Operation Inherent Resolve. The proposed title implies to me a US-only not US-led intervention. But why is US leadership so important it has to go first in the title? If this is about the War against the Islamic State in Iraq, shouldn't that be the title? Srnec (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject 2010s, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Iraq have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)