Talk:Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001

Untitled

Previous discussion contents reside on Authorization for Use of Military Force discussion page due to creation of disambiguation page. --Fitzhugh 19:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was following the be bold concept, but I suspect now that there should have been a process seeking buy in by others (like anyone reading this) prior to my doing so. Forgive me if I've overstepped my bounds. Rather than undo the work, I will leave it as is for now and read up on the proper approach later today. In any case, you may, of course, revert, but I would ask that you consider my reasoning (I would like to see the end result be that "AUMF" and "Authorization for Use of Military Force" are a disambiguation page linking to both "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" and "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" since they are both known as the "AUMF" and both are very important resolutions that help define the world we live in (and obviously not just in the USA), yet both are related in some ways [at least according to the US administration, just kidding] and were passed in consecutive years they may be confused. I have no objections to anyone reverting, but note that I changed the following pages in various ways to make this work properly (so you can revert properly):

• AUMF - changed to redirect to Authorization for Use of Military Force
• Authorization for Use of Military Force - changed to disambiguation page
• Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - changed from redirect to own article, which had been at "Authorization for Use of Military Force", added disambiguation links
• Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - did no major edits, remains redirect to Iraq Resolution
• Iraq Resolution - added disambiguation links

I don't think the results of my actions will be controversial, but I recognize now that the way I did them may be bad. Sorry for any problems or confusions. --Fitzhugh 19:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Authorisation?

This is an "Authorization", not a law. Isn't it simply a resolution? If that is so it has no legal force, and cannot be cited as authority for any action.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Move Request?

This edit caught my eye. Its edit summary says: [...]"Against Terrorists" appears nowhere in the title of the actual law, and, the law is in fact not written to cover "against terrorists" but only a specific application. The original title is misleading.. I see that PL 107-40 (2001-09-18) is titled: "Joint Resolution : To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.". Should there be a {{move request}} to move this article from its current title to Authorization for Use of Military Force, removing Against Terrorists? It seems to me this question ought to have been raised previously. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I took another look at the act and see that it does mention terrorists, and I see that Authorization for Use of Military Force is a dab page. SThat answers my question in the negative; I should have seen that earlier. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Article title

I moved this page from Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists to its current title, Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001. The name of the law is just Authorisation for Use of Military Force, but that would be ambiguous. I couldn't find much usage of the Against Terrorists disambiguator in reliable sources, and the usages I could find seemed to originate from Wikipedia. However, I'm now not sure whether the new title is in fact the best option.

The reasonable options seem to be:

1. Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (status quo, e.g. NY Times article, Washington Times article, Statement from congressman, Scholarly article, International organisation)
2. 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (e.g. CRS report, Heritage Foundation report, CNN article, NPR article, Statement to Congressional hearing, Congressional bill)
3. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against September 11 Terrorists (e.g. United States Code, Scholarly article, Another scholarly article)

Option 1 (+ of 2001), which is what I went with, makes use of a standard disambiguation format for U.S. legislation, but it doesn't seem to be particularly common for this law, perhaps because it sounds a bit unnatural. The most common real-world disambiguation seems to be Option 2 (just appending 2001 at front). To the extent that there is an official unambiguous name, The United States Code, which creates editorial disambiguators for legislation where needed, uses Option 3 (+ Against September 11 Terrorists), but that usage isn't very common outside of formal or scholarly settings.

Would be useful to get another opinion. Charlie A. (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)