This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Western Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / Middle East / North America / United States 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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American_intervention_in_Iraq

2014 American Intervention in Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.222.205 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq participated in Yom Kippur War, also the Farhud was not a direct result of the 1941 conflict rather than the result of the widespread disorder which followed the fall of the nationalist government.--Rafy talk 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Farhud - the reasons were defeat of Iraqi regime and its collapse, so it resulted in Farhud 2 days after the final battle and collapse of Rashid Ali's troops. Many of the looters and rioters were described as "returning flustrated and angry defeated soldiers". If you have more wars - pls add them, it should also include the Iraqi Kurdish Civil War and the Unification War of Saudi Arabia (Iraq was raided by violent Ikhwan troops during the 1920s).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Iraqi participation in October War, i don't see any sources on the October War (even though Iraqi flag is present). JVL says something about participatin of Iraqi division on Golan Heights attack together with Syria, but JVL is not a good source for such details. I would like to see any RS sources before Iraq is "involved" in the war.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

"During the war, an Iraqi division of some 18,000 men and several hundred tanks was deployed in the central Golan and participated in the October 16 attack against Israeli positions. Iraqi MiGs began operating over the Golan Heights as early as October 8, the third day of the war."

Sorry about my late answer I forgot about this discussion.--Rafy talk 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you put attention i had written "JVL says something about participatin of Iraqi division on Golan Heights attack together with Syria, but JVL is not a good source for such details.", so why do you bring JVL source (Jewish Virtual Library)? Anyway i found a good source on this - Revisiting the Yom Kippur war by P. R. Kumaraswamy, where he indeed says that Iraqi forces were engaged in Golan Heights fighting.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't pay attention and just picked the first one I found on google. There is also a whole article in arwiki about this.--Rafy talk 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should include the Black September, being sympathetic with king Hussein and providing the Jordanian army with oil does not make Iraq an active party of the war. Also why do we have to mention North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Union, etc? Again they were sympathisers who provided Arabs with arms, just as western powers helped Israel.--Rafy talk 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War: Cuba sent 1,500 troops to fight with the Egyptians, North Korea sent airplanes, while the Soviet Union actively provided political and economic support, as well as constant military supplies, to Egypt, Syria and other Arab states. Western powers did NOT help Israel (only the United States sent military equipment during the last days of the war, because Israel had suffered an arms embargo since 1967 and IDF's ammunitions were running out).--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they actually participated in the war? I suggest that you go first to the main article to force you version of the belligerents before adding them here.--Rafy talk 20:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they participated in the war, maybe like Norway with its 400 troops in Afghanistan, but all Arab and non-Arab expeditionary forces participated in 1973 (15 countries sent troops and equipment). The only exception is the Soviet Union (no soviet soldier or aircraft engaged the Israelis directly), but its involvement was so significant that should be pointed (like Soviet involvement in Angola, for example). Read this. EVEN LITTLE KUWAIT SENT 3,000 TROOPS TO FIGHT AGAINST ISRAEL!--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask why not just copy from the infobox of a featured article? I spoke my mind and I have no intention of starting an edit war over this, so you can keep the list as it is now. I intend on removing the Black September if you don't mind.--Rafy talk 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. But keep the Yom Kippur War list as it is. Besides, in the featured article only says major Arab expeditionary forces.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere throughout the sources it is said Israel was engaged against Syria and Egypt. Regarding Iraq, i've seen a good source - unless you bring sources on other countries engaging in fighting i erase them, since this is a synthesis - sending some equipment or soldiers, who never made it to the front, doesn't make those countries "belligerents", thus i agree with Rafy. And pls, don't try to push this on a featured article as well.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise - no problem to include Iraq, Morocco, Algerian, Tunisia, Sudan and Saudi Arabia as expeditionary forces (according to Kumaraswamy), however Pakistan and North Korea were only said to send some pilots, thus including those countries as belligerents is pretty much an exaggeration. Regarding Libya, Sudan and Kuwait i quote (Kuwaraswamy p.60):

"On the Egyptian front, the Libyan (manned by Egyptians), Algerian and Iraqi squadrons took part in bombing Israeli targets and providing air assistance to ground operations. Additional Arab forces operating on the Egyptian front were a Lybian armored brigade and a Kuwaiti infantry battalion which had been deployed in Egypt before the war, and an Algerian armoured brigade which arrived on 17 October. Neither of these units took an active part in the war. After the cease-fire went into effect, a Sudanese infantry brigade also arrived in the front."

So this is very much undue to include Libya, Sudan and Kuwait, whereas Lebanon and Cuba were not mentioned at all.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait as well as some others didn't take part in the war. In fact it is said that most of those troops were either deployed prior to the war (Kuwaiti) and never engaged in fighting, or arrived to the front after the cease-fire took place (Sudanese). The same weight - Iraqi division was deployed in Jordan prior to Black September, but didn't take much part in the fighting, thus was not included by you in the table.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 1991 uprisings in Iraq from the "war list", keeping them in other conflicts section. I've never heard any source naming 1991 uprisings a "war". In addition, they fail a definition of war according to Webster:

War is a state of opened and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

Since both Shia uprising and Kurdish uprising were local, rather than nation-wide, those uprisings fail the definition of war. We can make a table for other conflicts (rebellions, uprisings, coups and revolutions), but including those within wars is incorrect.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Flag of PUK.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 13 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody with knowlege of that conflict reduce the number of listed participants? It looks like WW from a brief look, but most nations mentioned sent merely a few dozen or a hundred personnel, who had no direct access to the front lines, or even just material support. Completely redundant.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some major changes on this article. If I removed something in the process that shouldn't have been removed, please don't hesitate to re-insert it or let me know. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most these conflicts are inter-connected, in that they are always between Arabs and Kurds or Shi'ites and Sunnis. I think there should probably be one article about what is several wars in one (like the ones for Afghanistan, Burma, and Somalia). Charles Essie (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the Iraq War has ended simply because the coalition has withdrawn. The Iraqi Insurgency is not a "new" conflict, but a continuation of the one that has been going on since 2003. It would be wrong to say the coalition "won" in 2011 when the war is still going on (as the recent capture of Fallujah clearly shows). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coalition did not 'win' in 2011. However, the Wikipedia article for the Iraq War is specific to US coalition intervention. The US initiated the Iraq War. The Iraqi insurgency is labelled as 'aftermath of the Iraq War'. This article should reflect the consensus on the Iraq War page. The conflict is still clearly going on; but it is no longer the 'Iraq War'. DylanLacey (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like saying that the Vietnam War ended with the US withdrawal in 1973, which of course was far from the case. The internal combatants in Iraq are the same today as before 2011, and dating the Iraq War solely based on when the coalition left is extremely POV. The Iraq War ends when the internal conflict in Iraq is over, not when it simply enters a new phase. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The Vietnam War (or the Second Indochina War) is perceived as part of an even larger conflict from 1946 to 1975. The Vietnam War was not initiated by the US in the same way that the Iraq War was. The Vietnam War tends to refer to the period from French withdrawal to communist victory. The Iraq War is referred to from coalition invasion to coalition withdrawal. You are welcome to dispute this idea of the Iraq War on the respective page DylanLacey (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who started the war is not really the discussion here, but whether the war is still ongoing. Articles about the war in Iraq are divided into historical phases (2003 Invasion of Iraq, Iraqi Civil War etc.) for the sake of clarity and order, without this meaning that they are not all part of the same, broader conflict. Claiming the war to have ended simply because of the US withdrawal is again extremely POV, and I fail to see the logic behind your argument that a war ends when the ones who started it pulls out. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the Vietnam War and the Iraq War were both part of larger conflicts. The Third Indochina War is not considered part of the Vietnam War. This is because the consensus is that the Vietnam War ended with the communist victory, when in fact conflict continued. The same principle applies here. I don't consider it extremely POV because I am reflecting the consensus on the Iraq War page, rather than having this page contradict the page its linking to. There should be consistency between articles. War dates are defined by what we think they were. For example, WWII really effectively started in 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China. The Iraq War was a stage in a conflict that has been ongoing for decades; Iran-Iraq War (80-88), Gulf War (90-91), No-fly zones and sanctions (91-03), Iraq War (invasion and coalition presence) (03-11), Iraqi insurgency (11-present) DylanLacey (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Indochina War was fought between different combatants (communists vs. communists) and started after years of relative peace following the end of the Vietnam War. I am also not sure whether or not the first and second Indochina wars can be considered as the same conflict as the Viet Cong conducted their first guerilla action in 1959, five years after the French departure. That being said, I agree that Wikipedia should be consistent, and although I maintain that stating 2011 as an end date is highly POV, I guess I can agree on it perhaps being the best solution as of right now. Cheers. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...does obviously not apply here, for three reasons: layout, convenience, and norm. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]