Talk:War against the Islamic State/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New Belligerent

The Pakistan Taliban have pledged their allegence to the Islamic State. Merica4444 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Alan Henning.

With great sorrow a second British hostage has been murdered by ISIS, Alan Henning. I request this to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Very sad indeed, I checked into this page today and was surprised that the British contribution hasn't been updated. However, that does not mean I believe we should jump straight into conclusions about how the belligerent infobox should look. I think we should discuss here prior. Australia is contributing 600 support troops, Britain is contributing none. That alone I believe should be the deciding factor.--Empire of War (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do not accept 600 troops trumps a warship, a nuclear powered submarine, special forces, Chinooks, a Voyager refueling tanker and 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft along with 8 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft. Plus Britain already has over 100 military personnel on the ground and is considering expanding operations to Syria -- very likely now another one of our citizens have been murdered. Exactly what are those 600 troops doing? Australia has not even conducted airstrikes. Britain has. Let's discuss. VeryangryBrit (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what was said above, Australia is not alone in contributing troops; the UK has contributed some too. The 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment was sent into Irbil to assist with a rescue mission and UK Special Forces are also active elsewhere in the country, coordinating airstrikes and rescues. There's absolutely no doubt they are hunting down the killers of David Haynes and Alan Henning, too.

Those are all reconnaissance ships, and actually Australia has begun launching airstrikes on ISIS so your wrong there too.--Empire of War (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Humanitarian photo

Hello! I would like to ask if my photo could be placed in the article instead of the current one (no offense to who placed it, thanks for the help!). This photo (File:United States humanitarian airdrop over Iraq, Aug. 8, 2014.jpg) is of a higher resolution and is directly from the Department of Defense itself.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My only concern is displaying a non-warfighting image in a military conflict article. Since the west's primary objective in its war is to inflict destruction on its enemies, I would be concerned an image showing USA soldiers handing out food or teddy bears or something could be perceived as propagandistic. (In all honesty, I don't think the current picture is violent enough imagery to be fair and accurate, but it may be the best that's available.) That said, I don't object to your picture being in the article generally, and I will completely defer to what everyone else thinks in terms of placing it in the infobox. DocumentError (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think that the photo of pallets of humanitarian aid is propagandistic. It is not distracting from the military actions because it is in the humanitarian efforts section. Not everything is a plot to support the US. - SantiLak (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I said it would only be propagandistic if it were in the infobox. As per my message, I have zero objection to it being in the humanitarian efforts section. So I'm unclear what you're carrying on about. DocumentError (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Making the case for Australia and Britain

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.

---

A notable member of Wikipedia has continuously edit warred his way to remove Australia from the belligerent infobox and to replace it with the United Kingdom. I'll make my case why I believe Britain should be below Australia.

It could be argued you EDIT warred by retaliating and putting Australia back to No.1 because you clearly think they should be ABOVE Britain. Your argument is nothing to do with it being alphabetical. It is a national preference just like mine. So you also edit warred. The BRITISH case is made a little lower. VeryangryBrit (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Going by actual fighting units:

Britain has:

• 8 warplanes
• 100 troops

Australia has:

• 8 warplanes
• 600 troops
• 200 Special Forces

User:VeryangryBrit believes that Britain should be above Australia because they are also providing:

• 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
• 1 Type 45 destroyer
• 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
• 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

However none of these units are going to be participating in actual conflict and are used for reconnaissance and transport cargo vehicles

However I could do the same for Australia as they too are providing:

• 1 Boeing 737 AEW&C
• 1 Airbus A330 MRTT
• 1 Transport Ship

Which again is nothing more than reconnaissance and transport vehicles, if we were going to add all of these into the infobox then it would be twice the size it is now

It is my belief the infobox should be based purely on units engaged in combat, eg Warplanes and troops. On either basis however I believe Australia is contributing enough to stay above Britain for the time being.--Empire of War (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Case for the United Kingdom.

-Well, you made your case, now I have the right to respond.

• Let me first address the fact that you said Britain's warship and nuclear submarine are not "going to be participating in actual conflict and are used for reconnaissance and transport cargo vehicles". I have attached a link that suggests otherwise as HMS Defender is being delpoyed to DEFEND American aircraft carrier USS George H W Bush and fire British missiles into ISIS. This is A CONFLICT role. As for the submarine, that is in a striking position (therefore it in conflict) in the Gulf and I have references to support this. Despite not yet firing, it is still in a conflict ready position and holds just as much clout as Australia's 600 troops that have NOT actually engaged in combat and their planes that have NOT engaged in airstrikes. If Australia's military contributions are not actually doing anything, why do they hold more clout than Britain's which are doing something?

Here is the evidence of the Royal navy warship conflict involvement: http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-03/hms-defender-in-position-to-support-us-airstrikes/ Therefore I absolutely refute your claim with evidence that the Type 45 Destroyer is in a non conflict role. This British contribution already trumps Australia's entire contribution and I am not even finished yet. The British warship has responsibility for protecting the lynch pin of America's strike ability.

• Perhaps most importantly however, Australia HAS NOT conducted ANY airstrikes whats so ever. Britain HAS. Therefore, despite both nations contributing the same amount of warplanes, Britain's contribution is much more significant as it's warplanes have actually got involved and struck ISIS -- Australia's warplanes have done, so far, absolutely nothing. Additionally, the UK has exercised much more pain on Isis than Australia as it has done strikes and Australia has not. So how can Australia be above Britain if it hasn't actually done anything of note against Isis yet Britain has? This reinforces my point of bias against the UK which is a claim of my mine other members support.

I see Empire of War has intentionally left out Britain's Special Forces in his comments. Not only is the Special Air Force involved but the Special Boat Service -- a much more varied contingent than Australia's contribution. It seems fairly clear to me Empire of War is wanting to do list things which will ultimately benefit Australia's appearance of involvement in all this and the user has tried to, continuously, dismiss the involvement of a warship and nuclear submarine as non-conflict which is utter rubbish.

• The Chinooks have not been involved in direct fighting fine, but they have been in an extremely dangerous conflict zone providing aid to fleeing Yazidis which is ultimately not helping Isis.

Empire of War wants to change the definition of military contributions. The user is suggesting, obviously to better suit Australia's position, that it is only a military contribution if the contribution is in a constant combat role - if it is not, then it is not a contribution. Therefore, with this view, as destroyer is not a military contribution. This view is why we had the UK apparently, according to this article, only contributing two warplanes to the whole mission.

• Also, the political and military leaders are NOT in alphabetical order so therefore this is clearly nothing to do with that excuse. Australian leaders should not be above British leaders.

So, why should Britain be above Australia?

• Australia has conducted NO airstrikes, Britain has.
• Britain is contributing a much more well rounded, LARGER and therefore more effective military contribution; warplanes, destroyer, nuclear submarine, special forces and ground troops. The only nation apart from the US to contribute such a varied array of assets.
• Britain is protecting the pinnacle of the American strike capability - the USS George H W Bush.
• Britain is close to expanding military operations to Syria.
• Australia is contributing no more than Britain, and with Britain actually conducting strikes against ISIS and Australia not doing so, Britain therefore trumps Australia. VeryangryBrit (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Rename Article to 2014 conflict against ISIS

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 this article be renamed 2014 conflict against ISIS?

Opinion in Brief

• Support The title 2014 intervention against ISIS is unnecessarily limiting to the parties involved in the conflict against ISIS and will require we purge the Shiite militias, and other non-state actors from the infobox, since they're not technically "intervening." We have too many spin-off articles as it is, this article should be made as broad as possible to prevent the necessity of more spin-offs. DocumentError (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support This title is one of the best I have seen, only problem I have with it, is that this will obviously be a multi-year conflict so "2014" will date pretty quickly, a more permanent name should be sought. Perhaps simply War against ISIS?--Empire of War (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you make a good suggestion, Empire of War, vis a vis "War against ISIS." My only concern is that I think we would need some RS that identified it with the name "war" which is less generic than "conflict." But if something like that exists, I will amend my naming change suggestion. The other, more general, concern I have is using the words "against ISIS" which is loaded to make ISIS into the role of an enemy, which seems POV. (For instance, WP calls it "War of 1812" instead of "War against the UK," and "Vietnam War" instead of "War Against North Vietnam" or "War Against the United States." DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion and Replies

We have been around this circle before. See the RfCs already going on the topic. See the various processes started to push this POV that failed. We already have articles for the Syrian Civil War and the Iraqi Insurgency. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

well this ain't gonna work

Whomever re-grouped the nations in the infobox into "Team America" and "Miscellaneous" (AKA "US led Coalition" and "Other Parties") needs to chill out. I don't have time to undo it right now to how it was before but that is critically intolerable, goes against consensus, and promotes an Americentric, non-representative worldview. I'll fix it later, though it would be appreciated if the violator would do it herself. Does this article really need to be protected again? DocumentError (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The box was totally messed up, a jumbled mess of involved and uninvolved parties and even missing important parties in the 2014 Military intervention against ISIL. Reverting would be vandalism. Please lay off on the accusations, insults and threats start AGF please. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. This seems to be your go-to excuse: "everything was messed up so I had to assume emergency powers to unilaterally break consensus and redo it in my preferred way" (just like here and a thousand other places). I'm going to fix it tomorrow as per consensus. You can do it in the meantime if you like. But there's absolutely no way we're going to have a "Rah Rah America!" section and then an, "oh yeah, and these guys, too" section. That's not gonna happen. DocumentError (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better way to list the 24 countries that are acting as a coordinated block? We already hide a bunch of them in a drop down which gives extra visual weight to the minor interventions of Russia and Hezbollah. The countries have been grouped like this continuously since the start of the conflict and the article so which consensus trumps the way it has always been? Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll have this discussion (with everyone - it's not your and my decision to make in tandem) once you put it back to how it was ordered. No, it's not ideal. But this is not the right article to practice being WP:BOLD. If you haven't noticed this is a highly emotional and delicate topic. The order of just two countries caused a major headache here. You've just reordered 17 of them. Further, it's not your place to unilaterally select "Other Intervening Parties" as a catchall for all non-western nations. I will concede that phrase if it's approved by consensus but it's, otherwise, extremely demeaning and highly offensive. You're driving a bulldozer through the article at 80KPH and, when people yell at you to slow down, ripping your shirt off and waving around a live hand grenade. You need to cool down. This isn't a race. DocumentError (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For reference this was the messed up infobox before my edits that the other editor wants me to revert to. There you will find the top belligerent on the left is Assyrian Forces which is not even an actual country or army but an ethnic group whose people are generally fighting with the Kurds. Next is the MFS which joined the Kurds in January. Then two minor Iraq based political parties were listed as a belligerents - even though they lack an army or any political power. After 17 more assorted entities we finally find the big guns at the party and their partners way down at the bottom-you remember the forces with planes bombing ISIL back to the stone age and shipping weapons into the region as fast as they can find them? On the ISIL side we find 13 other parties, including the Al Qaeda enemies of ISIL who became Wikipedia allies somehow, uninvolved and even defunct groups. Legacypac (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:PERFECTION, I don't care how bad it was. Discuss then edit. This wasn't a minor edit you undertook; it was slash and burn. The lumping of Russia with Iran (an alliance based on a meme, as opposed to RS), the breaking of alphabetical order that had been agreed upon, or the creation of the highly demeaning, diminutive, and offensive name "Other Intervening Parties" is unacceptable. You're not cyber-fighting ISIS. The world will survive if you take a breath and spend a couple days cooperatively working through this. Just let us know if you're planning on undoing this, and engaging in a calm discussion on how to improve the infobox or not. If not, we need to bring an interlocutor in immediately. You periodically invoking some imagined emergency powers to make "urgent" edits on this very delicate article is no longer sustainable. DocumentError (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I never voted for the Assyrians to be listed at the top. I thought we were voting on the order of countries involved in the U.S.-led coalition, because VeryangryBrit and others were having some trouble with the UK being listed at the bottom of them.. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, the RfC only had to do with ordering in the "coalition" category in which it was decided the U.S. would be listed at top, followed by an alphabetical ordering. We did not discuss recategorizing everything into "USA" and "Miscellaneous Countries" boxes. DocumentError (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. We're going to fix it right now. DocumentError (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree with your points, in the interest of trying to work cooperatively I made this edit to address the specific points about the infobox raised. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

STOP!!! Legacypac, you're still not understanding. This has nothing to do with what I do or don't want. This has to do with discussing major edits before making them. You are wasting countless hours of our time by making sweeping changes that have to be undone later and yelling "bring it on!" when someone asks you to stop. List of mayors of Albany, New York or or Texas State Highway 46 are great articles to be BOLD at. This is not. Stop. Please. DocumentError (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of Belligerents in Infobox (was: Final Disposition on the UK - Australia Dispute)

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.

---

I understand the situation is fluid and evolving but we really need some stability here. I don't care either way if Australia or the UK is on top but the Talk page is getting trashed by this endless bickering. Therefore, the question is posed: which nation should, as of the date of this discussion and until a significant change in force commitment occurs, be listed second in the infobox (after the USA)? Option 1 - Australia, Option 2 - UK (please bullet your notes below and limit your comments to 1-2 concise sentences; do not post replies in the "Opinion in Brief" section) DocumentError (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion in Brief

• True Alphabetical Australia - at this time I am convinced by the arguments presented by others here that RS indicate AUS has a larger commitment in terms of raw troop levels. I believe precedent indicates we go by personnel commitment and not the relative value of materiale or equipment. Changed my mind; as per LP, I go with alphabetical, though I don't believe the U.S. should get special treatment and should also be alphabetized. Australia first, followed by Belgium, Canada, etc.; U.S. last. DocumentError (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Alphabetical after the US, which is clearly the leader, and by country they are fighting in of course. We don't know who has what assets in play, we can't judge if 1 ship equals 10 planes or 100 ground forces to come up with a points based system, and in a multi-year conflict stuff changes over time. That is also how the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is structured.
• Alphabetical for the US coalition nations after the US because they are the leader in that coalition, and as such should be the leader in the coalition section of the infobox. It is not special treatment as it Legacypac is right, we can't come up with a system like that. The only country that should go at the top from what I see is the US simply because they have such a vastly larger material commitment than the other coalition nations that they should go on the top. SantiLak (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Alphabetical after US. US is in its own "Iraq and Syria" section, so the other sections separately regarding Iraq and Syria should be presented in alphabetical form.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Australia after the U.S. (almost every single other conflict infobox is listed as in strength/numbers including WW1, WW2, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, and so on. A alphabetical infobox will not be long term as it will lead to even more criticism by other members/non-members. I think it is clear Australia is sending more help militarily than the UK by numbers alone, hardware and reconnaissance vehicles should not trump the 800 troops Australia is sending.--Empire of War (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Alphabetical after USA.90.244.94.220 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Alphabetical after the U.S., which is clearly the leader of the operations. This should be the format used on the Syria and Iraq theater articles as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Alphabetical - Helps resolve everything. Good proposal. --Acetotyce (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• UK after USA, ahead of Australia the UK has committed just as many assets as Australia (more, actually), but unlike Australia, the UK has made FIVE airstrikes and has been flying recon sorties over Iraq since early August. Australia has not made any airstrikes to date and (correct me if I'm wrong) started flying recon sorties a lot later than the UK. The UK has made more airstrikes than any other non-ME partner in the coalition after the USA, right? TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• US, Combat Intervening countries by alphabet, other countries by alphabet. Juno (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Section for Replies and Long Discussion

(nothing here now; delete this once something is posted)

• and if you don't like alphabetical, Canada needs to go before the US because Canadians are geographically above the US, joined WWI and WWII before the US, are a physically bigger country and have better looking women and play better hockey :)

  A little country rivalry humor helps to cheer up the talk pages sometimes. Good one. - SantiLak (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• So basically this seems to be the argument for putting the USA first in the list - [[1]] DocumentError (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'm advocating for alphabetizing the coalition partners excluding the US which is by far the largest coalition partner in the coalition intervention. It works in the 2014 american intervention in Iraq page and for the coalition section of the infobox it should work here. This is not an attempt to focus everything on the US, its just a fact that in the coalition they are the largest participants. SantiLak (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Then what about the infobox leaders list? That surely can't be alphabetical?--Empire of War (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Empire of War's point has some merit, but even if historical conflicts are organized by strength (in Gulf War it seems to be by # of ground troops, after Kuwait), this conflict is in its early days of what all expect to be a multi-year conflict, and we just don't know yet. Leaders and any list of forces in the info box should be listed in the same order as the countries are organized, then by rank if there are multiple leaders for a country, though there is no reason to list all the leaders or exact contributions in the infobox if we want to maintain usability. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I advise people to look at both arguments for each option which have been made above this section. I will admit I find it a little biased that a vote has taken place with no documented case for the UK made. Clearly though the fact that a warship is being dubbed as a "reconnaissance vehicle" and dismissed a military asset shows the flaw in the Australian/Alphabetical argument. VeryangryBrit (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• In addition to what was said above, I am also quite skeptical of the whole "800 Australian troops" claim. Are 800 Australian troops actually deployed? Have any of them been involved in combat? Empire of War continues to dismiss the UK's naval commitments because he claims they have not been involved in combat. I'm pretty sure those 800 Australian troops haven't been either. In addition to that, the troop contributions of the UK are continually ignored on this page. UKSF are actively involved in Iraq and the 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment was involved in a rescue mission in Irbil. If we are just listing commitments by "involvement in combat", then surely the UK should be listed above Australia, considering the UK has committed five airstrikes and Australia has committed none. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Isil

Is not state? 138.16.100.15 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of our sources seem to use the term "ISIS". Let just stick with that? Juno (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary of article rework

For the benefit of other editors seeing this page, a summary of the changes over the last few hours:

• Remember this article sat locked for a week while the war and wikipedia progressed around it. It went from moment by moment updates to frozen in time and.
• The revised article is much shorter because redundant info was cut, the prose tightened, and blocks of extremely detailed info moved off to the appropriate detailed articles. Readers are now given an overview and referred to the detailed articles that already exist.
• While the edits appear sweeping, nearly all the content is the same, found either within the article or off in the detailed articles. The summaries in each section are new, carefully condensing the key points that were there before.
• It was a mess.
• Now it looks pretty good. Quite user friendly, organized and structured like the mother article it has become for different interventions against ISIL .
• I explained the reversion of the title above (fully within policy), away from the completely undiscussed short lived title to almost exactly the long standing title (one letter diff) but in the spirit of the consensus and discussion in Move Request 3 - which no one has commented on for about 3 days.
• Because the article was about the American intervention until fairly recently there was a lot of very US focused material (like a Reaction section that was actually 100% Domestic US). This focus has been toned down to better reflect the 30 some intervening countries, while still recognizing the practical fact that the US is the big player here.
• I got all the inconsistencies, formatting, and other issues I could find cleaned up. Surely some were missed.
• The infobox was pretty broken so the parties have been reorganized. Russia got added. Smaller armies and groups involved in the Civil Wars but who are not directly part of this conflict were cut. If a foreign army (kurds) have boots on the ground or a local army is partnered with a foreign power, they got to stay. Several groups don't even exist anymore independently as far as I can tell.
• Also cut were specific branches of any given armed forces across the board, every country. With so many active countries it does not work to start listing every air force, army, navy, marines, militia with 20 guys and this brigade and that special forces unit. That detail belong in narrower articles about specific battles. For this article it is enough to see that the United States, Iran etc are militarily involved.
• If anyone has constructive suggestions on specific ways to further improve the article please make them on talk or be bold. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks much better to me -- much closer to what I had in mind, and what I think other editors had in mind, when the Syria and later Iraq intervention pages were broken out. It's not perfect (is anything?), but it's a very functional and appropriate umbrella that still retains enough concise, generally well-sourced information to be a good primer on the situation. Obviously, the circumstances to reaching this point have been marred somewhat by the process -- a couple of disputed page creations, some unnecessary move-warring, etc. -- but it's a good end result. Hopefully, we can all continue to work together nicely to keep it up to date and improve it further. As a note, I would strongly encourage you to use the Talk page and user Talk pages to make sure involved editors know what is going on and what you are doing (and, preferably, make sure they agree with it) before you do it. WP:BRD exists for a reason, but in contentious subject areas like this one, caution is at least as prized as boldness. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Hopefully the summary of changes was helpful. If something that got cut needs to be reinstated it should be easy to do as I tried to mark all the diffs clearly and provided before and after links for the whole article. Since the cleanup there have only been pretty minor edits, except for the reintroduction of a couple lines about lack of name for US op. I'd cut the entire section as pointless but it sounds like it might impact service members in some ways, so fair enough a little mention is fine. Let's all work together on the articles and avoid disruptive activities I'm basically self imposing an interaction ban for my own sanity. I'll avoid saying more on that. :) Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

An article for intervention 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 there be an article focused solely on the intervention in Iraq? I know we have one for Syria and another one for the broader conflict. I noticed a discussion about this topic has already started here [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose conflict is not of a large enough scale to separate it by national borders Conditional Support on second thought, as per Juno; conditional on the merger of 2014 US-Coalition intervention in Syria with a new Syria-specific article DocumentError (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC) DocumentError (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support (ideally, I view this as the Iraq article, from which a global article would be spun) There is a broad, global effort against ISIS for which we have no article presently. There is an article for the theater of that conflict in Syria and there should be one for the theater of that conflict in Iraq. The conflicts in Iraq and in Syria have different coalitions, have received different international responses and have received different reactions from those two native governments. The Jordanians and Saudis are not fighting in Iraq, but they are fighting in Syria. The French and Australians are fighting in Iraq, but not in Syria. The Chinese and the Russians are weary of American actions in Syria, but did not object to those in Iraq. The Iraqi government is working with the Americans, the Syrian government does not appear to be. Juno (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have created a draft of the proposed article here at User:Acetotyce/Drafts/American-led intervention in Iraq --Acetotyce (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I support an article on the intervention in Iraq that includes all actors, including Iran and Hezbollah, in order to give a holistic view of the conflict. An article strictly on the participation of the U.S. and its subsidiaries will end up turning into a Pentagon vanity article. DocumentError (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can rename it to something less "American-led" if necessary. It was put that way to go with the current article in Syria, but now with Iran a part of the intervention I can get a neutral name. --Acetotyce (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the alternate name before I change my position. For instance, I would be fine with "Multinational Campaign Against ISIS (Iraq)" [ideally to parallel an article "Multinational Campaign Against ISIS (Syria)"] but I would not be fine with "Western Intervention in Iraq Against ISIS." I also would oppose use of the word "International" over "Multinational" as "International" conveys a sense of officialdom. DocumentError (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support There is an article specifically for the Syria intervention and there should be one for the intervention in Iraq. The different conflicts have different coalitions and have received different international responses and are distinct from each other. I don't support the merger of the current syria article with another article which will be bound to include the Syrian regime forces who are irrelevant in that intervention. The intervening parties in the case of Iraq do include Iran but not Hezbollah or the Syrian regime, and I don't believe that by not including forces that are not relevant to the article that somehow we would be writing a vanity piece for the pentagon. SantiLak (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I added to this very article, Hezbollah has incurred at least one KIA in Iraq since July, which is one more than the U.S. So, the idea we would include the U.S. but not Hezbollah is nonsensical. DocumentError (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe in both theatre's of battle the US has incurred multiple KIA's in airstrikes. SantiLak (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. No USA soldiers or airmen have been killed in this action, insofar as we have RS reporting. DocumentError (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was confused and thought that you mean incurred upon the enemy. SantiLak (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I'm in the same camp as DocumentError, but I think the scope of the proposed article can be expanded if there is consensus for it, and I don't want to hold up consensus for spinning off the daughter to begin with. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Supported and Created The article can be found at 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq feel free to discuss on and change the name if needed as I am not available till later. --Acetotyce (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've nominated your new article be merged back into this one and/or speedily deleted. An "article focused solely on the intervention in Iraq" does not mean an article focused solely on the "American-led intervention in Iraq." DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

UK intervention

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.

---

The UK government passed a motion earlier today (by 524-43) to allow air strikes in Iraq, this will consist of six Tornado GR4s flying out of Atakiri, Cyprus with SigInt support from a RC-135W River Joint, also out of Cyprus http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29366007. I would be grateful if someone more competent at wiki editing could add this to the article 86.146.96.80 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Parliamentary Resolution ≠ Military Action ... Given the state of the RAF, they might not have enough fuel for all six Tornadoes to even take off. Just kidding ... kinda. Anyway, once there are RS that show the Tornadoes are actually operationally involved then we can revisit this, otherwise this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. DocumentError (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The UK did 2 reconecaence flights this morning according to the BBC. 90.244.94.220 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The British initially thought and or wanted 1993 was a quick fix and beveled Blair at first. Blair lied and knew it was a long hall and the press admired Saddam's political skills. Soon Saddam was a folk hero in the UK and every one was convinced it was a new crusade and innocence Iraqis and troopers of the UK and/or USA were dieting in heaps. Several others fought with us and some died (Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Azerbaijan, etc).

OK, the Mahdi Army was eventually stalled, but as political leadership collapsed and equipment British dried up it went the way of the pear and the USA lost it's nerve. The silly Iraqie Nuri Al-Maliki government was set up and then abandoned. It is now chaos as ISIS fills the void. If you hit a nation, you must fix it after the war is over as we did with the USA and France on the West Germans after WW2, and that takes years (10 or so in W. Germany/the FRG). 90.244.94.220 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Open primaries as in the USA, recalling dud MPS for re-election, EU referendum, war in Syria, war in Iraq, Somalia, Ebola in West Africa, immigration, student tuition fees.... the list of times David Cameron has folded up in the face of the media and/or business men is endless. 90.244.94.220 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss politics. DocumentError (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

OK90.244.94.220 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The UK has contributed more than two Tornado GR4's. There are six stationed in Cyprus in total. In support of those, there is also an RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft.

Then there's the humanitarian aid component, which forms part of Operation Shader - four Chinook helicopters, along with personnel from 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment and UK Special Forces. There's also several C-130 Hercules taking part in aid drops. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RS for the number of aircraft being used in the operation: "the Prime Minister announced that a further two British Tornado jets would be deployed on the Iraqi mission ... Currently six Tornadoes from Number 2 Squadron are taking part in the Iraqi mission....Rivet Joint spy planes, based in Qatar, have been carrying out surveillance missions for weeks." "Prime Minister David Cameron has announced the deployment of two more British Tornado planes to join the fight against Islamic State.

He made the announcement during a visit to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, where British operations are based.

References

The two Tornados join six already based in Cyprus. One will leave later and the second will fly out on Friday.

The planes have carried out air strikes on four of their missions, hitting eight targets in five locations" and as much as I hate to quote the daily mail "In a surprise visit to Cyprus, David Cameron announced that 102-year old No II Squadron, which had been due to be disbanded in April, would be reprieved.

Two more Tornado GR4 fighter bombers were also being sent to Cyprus as the UK intensified operations against Islamic State targets in Iraq.

With six Tornados flying daily sorties ..." This was the just the first three results in google, it is now being very widely reported that six GR4s have been involved in the strike and another two have been sent to join them. Expecting evidence that each and every one has participated seems like an unrealistic standard of evidence beyond which is normally demanded for combatant figures in a conflict. 86.146.96.80 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Page protection

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.

---

Shouldn't there have been some discussion prior to locking the article for editing? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there was a clear and present issue that required immediate and decisive action. DocumentError (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not closely involved in this article but have edited on the fringes and watched its development and I respectfully disagree. Whilst there has been a little back and forth (mostly by IPs) in regards to fairly trivial matters in the infobox overall it seems to have been generally moving forward quite well. Page protection for 7 days on an event which is rapidly progressing seems like using a very big stick to deal with a fairly minor issue. Ultimately all its going to do is stop the article being developed. Given this is an important current event Wikipedia's coverage will be considerably lacking as a result. Whilst I have every respect for the volunteers that do the often thankless job of administrators I think this might be an unnecessary step that should probably be reconsidered. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting perspective! Let's sit on this for a week and then decide if we need to extend it another week or we can just let it expire. DocumentError (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My general feeling is that while there has been a lot of back and forth, so far the vast majority has been in Good Faith. Juno (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems most of the unconstructive edits are being made from non-members (IP Addressees), several of which have outright deleted countries from the infobox mainly that of Australia or France. Of course this is a significant ongoing event, and involved countries may increase or decrease their current presence but I think for the time being we should settle on the order of what countries are in. Atm it is all over the place, also I don't like how some non-Western countries are separated into their own boxes despite committing a sizable force, etc Iran for example.--Empire of War (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If vandalism is by IP's then semi-protection is the solution, not full protection which is an extreme measure that restricts experienced users from editing.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

this page should not be locked. It is an important article about a current event. The lock was at the request of DocumentError [3] for other than the stated reason in the lock request according to DocumentError.[[4]]. In other words the lock was initiated to further an editing agenda. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Rename Article to 2014 military intervention against ISIL

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.

---

I propose we follow the short form of the name on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for pure consistency. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for all reasons previously and exhaustively iterated elsewhere DocumentError (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral Either way would technically work but ISIS is also more well known than ISIL as a name. SantiLak (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This was basically covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS#Requested_move_3 which proposed spelling out ISIL for the title, which makes it very long. 5 for, 2 against, and one that did not like either the present or proposed title. I would expect that the editors who supported the longer version would support the shorter version just as well. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Almost all articles I have seen address it as ISIS--Empire of War (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well someone just moved the article - and see the talk page where there is strong arguements against "Islamic State" a very POV name. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We all must learn to accept the new name and just stop arguing. I don't like it either but that's what it is now. If it's changed again, that means it will have been changed 5 times in a week and a case would exist to re-protect the page, which none of us want. DocumentError (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The rename was a drive by without discussion (never even seen the editor on the talk page) and it is quite problematic, going against all the rename discussions at ISIL. Relying on the results of Move Request 3 I am going to Be Bold and make the move. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I get that the undiscussed move created some complications, but was there a technical reason why you were unable to move the article back to the previous title or else request administrative assistance, Legacypac? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exclamation Looks like the nom decided to go ahead with the move anyway, despite everyone being opposed. I guess this means another trip to the page protection department. *sigh* If anyone has a compelling reason why we don't protect the page, LMK in the next 4 hours. DocumentError (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, I could not restore the old name and the new name is really close to the old one - just one letter off.Should not be controversial Please don't make trouble for the sake of making trouble. See my rational above please. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find that a compelling reason. Poor Juno - below - is now stuck !voting on a change that's already been made. DocumentError (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, an admin should revert this move immediately. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose General consensus among our sources seems to be "ISIS". Juno (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Legacypac, you need to stop going through the article and changing every instance of "ISIS" to "ISIL" while this discussion is going on right this minute. There is no way you can't realize how incredibly borderline your actions are at this point between this and your other major and substantial, unilateral changes, such as here, etc. You need to de-couple the sense of ownership you have over this article. You have until tomorrow to undo the bulldozer you just took to this article or you'll be riding into the sunset before the end of the week. Scream "AGF" all you want, but this bizarrely aberrant and extremely disruptive behavior has passed every level at which a reasonable person can tolerate it. DocumentError (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• STOP! – There is still an open requested move discussion above on this very page about moving this article. Until that discussion is closed, no-one should be moving this page or opening more frivolous discussions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, RGloucester for saying this. I know we're on opposite sides, generally universally, in this article but I also know you and I at least agree we need to let processes work themselves out to avoid total chaos. DocumentError (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I also oppose the page rename that was made just hours ago. Epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Conditional support: I'm a consistency man. I like consistency. I think this should be the title. But I oppose parking the article at this title, even temporarily, without WP:CONSENSUS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Strike !vote. Didn't realize the movereq I started last month is still active, and preferable, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Requested move 3

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. As per the consensus: See policy page specifically WP:CRITERIA: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". As both this article and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant currently rely on the same reliable English language sources the titles of of the two articles ought to be consistent. If in the future the sources start to diverge then consistency can be re-examined. PBS (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 military intervention against ISIS → 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – The manual of style generally discourages ambiguous abbreviations in article titles. The proposed title comports with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Not much else to say. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Weak support as per nom, though it's clunky DocumentError (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't think that the abbreviation is ambiguous. Juno (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - you have to be living under a rock to not know who ISIS is. Just makes a seriously long title. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support - changed my mind, proposed title matches with the long fought over article name for the group. I also favor the current title 2014 military intervention against ISIL as it is just a shorter version of the same thing. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support to either 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or 2014 military intervention against ISILThe Arabic title of the organization as used as used by the group for the first half of 2014 is correctly translated as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and ISIS has always been inherently wrong. Arab opponents call the organization "Daʿesh" although various forms are used in western media. English speaking opponents use "ISIL". A name including Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL would be my preference re: WP:CRITERIA CONSISTENCY. While I personally am pushing to get the ISIS page changed so as to act as a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, it is also worth noting that there are a lot of organizations as well as people called ISIS. There is even a case of a person called Isis in the states petitioning media outlets not to use her name. At present the main article is called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant although that may eventually change to something like Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) or the longer Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). In the meantime the title of this article should share a consistent content as the main article on the topic. The group has changed its name numerous times with the result of the use of the following names in English: AQI, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISI, Islamic State of Iraq, ISIL/Isil, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS/Isis Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, Islamic State, Mujahideen Shura Council, QSIS, Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria, al-Dawlah, DAʿESH/Daʿesh, JTJ Organization of Monotheism and Jihad. At present the "Islamic State/..." is inaccurately referred to as ISIS but it is uncertain how the organization will be remembered or called. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• The groups is now called Islamic State, so neither title is appropriate. And the group never referred to itself as Daesh, by the way.[5] FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, in light of which I'm striking my opinion altogether. DocumentError (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If/when the title of the main article is changed to "Islamic State" or "Islamic State (...)" then it will certainly be appropriate to change this title to suit. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The US is also attacking other groups than IS now, so maybe we should not have names of any specific group in the title. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support on the whole. The trouble with IS as a name is that there are or have been a lot of states that claimed to be Islamic (e.g. Saudi Arabia). ISIL at least nails down which one we're talking about. The newspapers in the US usually call it ISIS, but who knows what they'll call it tomorrow? And ISIS is ambiguous. I don't know any Arabic myself, but I've always understood the second S stood for "as-Sham," which translates better as "Levant" than "Syria." So I would agree with the change, provided of course that the lead points out all the other possible names. Wallace McDonald (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support It fits with the main article being called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (though I think that article should just be Islamic State). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is now called "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so why is this article referring to the "state" as ISIS? Not to make the title too long, I would prefer it moved to 2014 military intervention against ISIL. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Consistency is necessary. We should match the title of the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Any discussion of changing the name of that article should take place there. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose point is well-taken but abbreviation isn't ambiguous DocumentError (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support – I learn much from Wikipedia on Isil. Good articles, I thank people who write to educate us. However, confusing nonsense across Wikipedia with no consistency. Is it Isil or is it Isis? Make up mind, I say. I see mind made up at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Given that mind made up there, suit must be followed, otherwise confusing to poor mind people like me. I want learn, don't make it harder! You decide to call it Isil at Isil page, fine! Stick with what you decided. Don't make mess for readers to searching around for naming. Anyway, Isil is just letters. Title need be clear, not just letters. 138.16.100.15 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No more RfCs

I would like to make clear that none of the so-called "RfCs" on this talk page have actually been "RfCs". If all you want to do is have a discussion, there is no need to add the RfC template. In fact, doing so is inappropriate. RfCs are supposed to run for thirty days, and have a specific format that needs to be adhered to. Please don't drop the RfC template all over the place to try and give a discussion "legitimacy". Plain discussions are fine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, as a notice, if one wants to comment on the title of this article, and one hasn't done so in this discussion before, please direct yourself to the section #Requested move 3. There is an ongoing discussion there about the future of the title of this article, and one should put one's input there. RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for removing the RFC tag from the move suggestion I started and then withdrew in favor of Requested move #3. I never intentionally tagged it an an RFC (never started an RFC and don't know how to tag one), perhaps another editor did that. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's try and stop the bad faith, regardless of reality. It isn't going to get us anywhere. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I just edited my comment to prevent misunderstanding. Hope we can avoid drama here. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

add Syrian Arab Army to Infobox

There are multiple RS showing the SAA is actively involved in combat operations against ISIS. While it may not be in coordination with the U.S., it is clearly within the scope of this article. DocumentError (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Under the current title, you are correct. The Russians and the Iranians should be chucked in too. Juno (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Agreed. I also think we should add Hezbollah to the infobox on the U.S./Syria side. There are ample RS indicating Hezbollah is active against ISIS. EDIT UPDATE - I made these changes. DocumentError (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The only information RS have been including the Syrian involvement is to the extent that they haven't shot down U.S. aircraft and the U.S. told Syria beforehand. Perhaps change the name of the article to U.S.-coalition like the Syrian intervention article if consensus is that it's too broad as of now. But news articles do not refer to Assad/Syrian involvement in this coalition. Syrian Civil War covers the scope of Assad's intermittent clashes with ISIS. Hello32020 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As per the article's title, this is an entry about "2014 military intervention against ISIS" not "air strikes during September against ISIS." The Syrian Arab Army and affiliates have been fighting ISIS during the year 2014. RS affirm this as per below. Being a member of a "U.S. coalition" is not a pre-requisite to be identified in a WP article as a co-belligerent. We report ground facts, not DOS PowerPoint presentations. The only possible alternative option is to have an infobox showing a three-party conflict (a. U.S. coalition, b. ISIS and allies, c. Syria and Hezbollah) ... I would be fine with that as a compromise. DocumentError (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Syrian special forces on Monday destroyed a bridge over the Euphrates River used by Islamic State to move supplies in eastern Syria ... [6]
• After approximately a year of extremely minimal confrontation with the Syrian government, the Islamic State is now also in the midst of a major offensive against Syrian Arab Army (SAA) facilities in northeastern Syria. [7]
• Defeats, including the capture of an air base where Islamic State executed scores of Syrian soldiers, have stirred rare public dissent in loyalist circles about the government's tactics - a potential pressure point for the Syrian leader. [8]

DocumentError (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be particular, but the Syrian government has also launched airstrikes against ISIS in September. Juno (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the focus of the article only pertains to the U.S. and its' allies actions against ISIS. Per the first sentence: "In the summer of 2014, in response to gains made by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State) in Iraq, United States President Barack Obama began to deploy U.S. military forces to Iraq to defend American assets and to advise Iraqi government forces." David O. Johnson (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. The title of the article is "2014 military intervention against ISIS." DocumentError (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that this is Ameripedia but the US and coalition forces have been fighting against ISIS since 2014 and not since 2011 like the Syrian army. David O. Johnson has a point that the focus of the article pertains only to the US and Coalition actions against ISIS. SantiLak (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does need to be refocused to make it accurate to the title. I'll start working on this. I just changed the lede to de-Ameripedia it. DocumentError (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My point wasn't that it needs to be refocused but that the Syrian government's role has been more in the Syrian Civil War against IS and not really at all with the recent events involving coalition strikes. The page is meant to address the military intervention recently and even if they have attacked IS recently it wasn't part of that broader intervention but part of the civil war. The page shouldn't be changed to add the Syrian regime because they really aren't as relevant here. Also the biggest foreign coalition partner is the US and they were the one of the first and probably the largest foreign contributors to airstrikes in Syria and Iraq so they are relevant in the article. You shouldn't remove references to them in an effort to "de-ameripedia" it or whatever that means because they are quite relevant to the article. SantiLak (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No references have been removed. The only thing I have done is add references. To your other point, there is already an article called 2014 US-Coalition intervention in Syria which deals just with the U.S. and its friends. The title of this article is "2014 military intervention against ISIS." Syria has been engaged in military intervention against ISIS in 2014. DocumentError (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That article references the Syria intervention specifically which by the way is also part of the broader military intervention against ISIS that began in 2014, not the Syrian Civil War which has been going on since 2011 in which the Syrian Regime has been fighting IS. Just because they also have been fighting IS in 2014 doesn't mean that they are part of the broader intervention. They were already fighting IS, they aren't part of this new military intervention. SantiLak (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article is "2014 military intervention against ISIS" not "New Belligerents Joining Intervention Against ISIS in 2014." Syria has been engaged in military operations against ISIS in 2014. Wikipedia is not a race and whoever got here first doesn't get to plant their flag on the page. What the status quo of what the article reference is irrelevant; if the text of the article doesn't include Syria right now, then we just change it so it does. Simple as that. DocumentError (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that the current article is US-centric, the title is not, it currently purports to cover all of the anti-ISIS conflict in 2014. Juno (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

agreed; I've added a section "Syrian Air and Ground Forces" and expanded the lede to recalibrate the article from its current US-centric focus DocumentError (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - For reasons already explained above, this is a pan-regional conflict not just confined to Iraq. The Syrian Government is indeed fighting against the same organization as the West.--Empire of War (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The article that focuses on the fight in Syria against ISIS involving foreign forces has already been established. The section you added references things that all happened in Syria during the civil war there, not during the military intervention by other countries against ISIS. The article's intention is to focus on the intervention by different forces against ISIS, not Syria continuing a fight against them that has been going on since 2011. All of the forces listed in the infobox except the Syrian regime forces and Hezbollah are participating in this new intervention. The point of the article is not all fighting that has gone on between certain groups and ISIS in 2014 but the military intervention that occurred. Hezbollah fought ISIS but they fought them before 2014 in the Syrian Civil war and so did the regime. They aren't participating in the intervention as they were already fighting them before 2014. If they had just decided to now start fighting ISIS then adding them would make sense but they haven't. If Syria should be added then it would be better to just name it "Anti-ISIS military operations" because then Syria would make sense to be included but not in this article. SantiLak (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. I've only added references to military actions by the Syrian Arab Army against ISIS in the year 2014, including SAA actions to disrupt ISIS supply lines going into Iraq. This is totally consistent with the title "2014 military intervention against ISIS." Thanks for your passionate input. DocumentError (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point which is that even though those actions took place in 2014 they were part of the Syrian civil war and not part of the 2014 military intervention against ISIS, just because they are fighting against ISIS in 2014 doesn't mean it is part of the intervention as they were already fighting ISIS before 2014 during the civil war. SantiLak (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you're missing my point. There is no conflict called "2014 military intervention against ISIS." "2014 military intervention against ISIS" is a descriptive term, not the name of a conflict. And it describes what it says: military actions against ISIS in 2014. Those include those taken in a vacuum by the U.S., those undertaken by Syria as part of a larger conflict, or, anything else. If you would like to move for a name change of the article, I'd be happy to give it serious consideration. DocumentError (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The title is also not "Military actions against ISIS in 2014" because if it was then adding Syria would make sense. Intervention's definition is: "Interference by a country in another’s affairs" and Syria is not intervening in their own country when they were already fighting ISIS in their civil war. The title does not encompass any military actions against ISIS in 2014 but instead the intervention in 2014 against it. At the least for now they should be separated from the US and other coalition partners in the infobox because they aren't cooperating, at least until we can reach a consensus. SantiLak (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. DocumentError (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: DocumentError is dramatically changing the whole point of the article, for the worse. What has happened is a duplicate article referencing the US in the title and a couple editors trying to change this article (which started when the US and allies started bombing ISIS in Iraq and then Syria. There are well established articles for the Syrian Civil War - this conflict is about the international effort against ISIS which is NOT directly part of the Syrian Civil War. The Civil War is a backdrop and factor, but this is a different deal. Changes to add the Syrian Armed Forces border on vandalism in my view because it changes the whole scope and purpose of the article. None of the anti-ISIS coalition are partnered with Assad, and most would like to see him wiped out.Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the title of this article is "2014 military intervention against ISIS," NOT "2014 U.S. coalition against ISIS." Syria IS part of the "international effort against ISIS" because it is (1) a nation, and, (2) it is fighting against ISIS. The word "international" IS NOT a synonym for "NATO." The fact that Syria's efforts against ISIS are not being done in coordination with U.S./Dutch efforts is irrelevant, as is the fact that U.S. efforts are not in coordination with Syrian/Iranian efforts. The fact the west wants the Syrian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party "wiped out" is irrelevant; we write Wikipedia articles based on ground facts, not to reinforce the political agendas of individual governments. If you want a beauty pageant article to showcase western efforts against ISIS, then write an article called "2014 U.S. coalition against ISIS" or something like that. If you get rid of Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah in this article then a new article called "2014 military intervention against ISIS (Non-U.S. Led)" will have to be made and that would be inefficient. DocumentError (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We have an article called Syrian Civil War already covering your proposed topic. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The current scope and purpose of this article is laid out in the current title, a title which Syrian actions decidedly fall under. Juno (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The intervention is entirely separate from what Syria is doing; the countries involved in this operation launched it without Syrian coordination. The intervention just started fairly recently, while the Syrian operations have been ongoing for a longer period of time. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Americans bombed ISIS in Iraq, the Syrians bombed ISIS in Iraq. I'm not sure how one is military intervention and the other isn't. Juno (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Attention - please note I have opened a RfC on this below. EDIT - deleted user notifications. DocumentError (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Juno (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The Syrian regime forces should not be included in the article. - SantiLak (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support They can be included in a separate category, but their contributions should still be noted as their soldiers have often suffered the blunt of the ISIS offensive in Syria. Redflorist (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no disputing that their soldiers have fought against ISIS but not as part of this intervention, but instead as part of the Syrian civil war which started in 2011. They are not part of this 2014 intervention and really shouldn't be included. - SantiLak (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

German intervention

Should the German "intervention" not be listed under Military and Humanitarian aid rather than under the US-led coalition intervening in Iraq only? The sources used do not inidicate proper intervention as is currently listed, but merely humanitarian and military aid, as Germany was listed under for over a month with the same sources. Jurryaany (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

while Germany is providing weapons, non-lethal equipment and humanitarian aid they also apparently have 40 troops in Iraq doing training/advising much like Canada has a small group in there. That is why they are listed in the upper section for what it's worth. Good question. Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Map

How about adding maps to the infobox or article? Without the maps, the article is kind of empty. These maps might be used Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. --Novis-M (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The name is ridiculously long

further discussions on renaming have been ruled disruptive Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

Cant we just rename it to War Against Islamic State or War on ISIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseConsider (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A requested move discussion was recently closed by a third party in favour of this title. Consensus is in favour, and hence it will stand. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment (and the first option). Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The indicated move close seems questionable. First, it looks like a !supervote. Second, it mis-characterizes where the RSs are on this. As of mid-September 2014, many of the most prominent English-language news media groups, including the BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and the Associated Press used the name the "Islamic State".[9] Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My dear fellow, if you have something to say about the naming of the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, please go to that article, and change the name there. I will say, however, that there have been five recent RMs there to move it to "Islamic State", and all have failed. My apologies if your opinion does not align with consensus there. However, we must remain consistent. Until that article is changed, this one will remain like this. RGloucester — ☎ 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd exercise caution even suggesting a name change since yesterday User:PBS gave a 3 month ISIL topic ban to a user who insisted on pushing the exact same point. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Gloucester -- I followed the link you yourself supplied. To the close you yourself referred to. That close stated in part: "As both this article and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant currently rely on the same reliable English language sources the titles of of the two articles ought to be consistent. If in the future the sources start to diverge then consistency can be re-examined." I am referring to what you pointed to.

And indicating what the reliable English language sources use. How can it be that you believe that you raising the close is on-point, but my indicating the latest with regard to what reliable English sources use ... with a ref ... is not on point? Epeefleche

What the closer meant by that was that the two articles need to have a consistent title. If the name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant changes, this article will follow suit. One cannot happen without the other. In other words, you'd need to demonstrate at that article, which is the main article for the organisation, that reliable sources show that "Islamic State" should be used. However, many RMs at that page have failed, because editors agreed that IS was not an appropriate name for that article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche Don't ignore our cautions. Please see this warning by User:PBS- and if you persist in discussing don't say you were not warned. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=628682800&oldid=628682701

Also while digging up that edit for Epeefleche's benefit I found that User:PleaseConsider who started this move discussion today was warned yesterday about this topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all -- I appreciate your concern that I not be caught by any currents I'm unaware of. And, as you probably fathom since I haven't !voted in more than (at best?) one move discussion, I have not as you guess been focusing on them previously in any significant way.

Second -- I'm simply responding to Gloucester's comment. Which pointed via diff to a close. And commenting on the very close and comment that he raised.

Third, I've just check the first diff -- but didn't see if there was consensus agreement with PBS's suggestion that there be a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). The diff I gave reflected an openness on PBS's part -- consistent with what our rules say -- to follow what the RSs say. The New York Times, we know, just recently took a position on this. And the diff I reflected shows a state of RS acceptance that did not formerly exists. Continual debate is disruptive if the facts don't change; that's not the case (though it may have been with one or more of the requests). Consensus can change in a short period when the RSs reach different conclusions in that short period, as is the case with for example the New York Times recently changed position.

I'm not making a move request. But pointing out the most recent RS coverage as to what the high-level RSs most recently do in this area, which reflects very recent changes in high-level RS policy. And pointing it out for purposes of this discussion, responding to the above. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can call the admin closure a !supervote when all but one editor participating in the discussion supported the proposal and it had been open for more than a week. It would be one thing if consensus (not to be confused with unanimity) didn't clearly exist -- but under these circumstances, saying the admin supervoted is a wholly unsupportable and rather inflammatory accusation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's a fair point Kudzu. This was a complex !vote. The opposes (two, actually) were obviously smaller in number than those who titled their !votes "support". If one reads the text of the support !votes, curiously a number of them are not direct supports of the move suggestion, but rather more complicated. Saying things such as "I also favor the current title 2014 military intervention against ISIL", and "Strong support to either 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or 2014 military intervention against ISIL", and "The groups is now called Islamic State, so neither title is appropriate," and "The US is also attacking other groups than IS now, so maybe we should not have names of any specific group in the title," and "though I think that article should just be Islamic State," and "Not to make the title too long, I would prefer it moved to 2014 military intervention against ISIL." And while we don't simply nose-count (and certainly don't nose-count titles of !votes), but instead look to policies (such as wp:commonname) in our closes, and also discount or don't give weight to arguments that do not follow our policies, at the same time if we were to simply nose-count, and nose-count not what they say but rather the title to their !votes, the very clear majority of editors supported the move -- though as pointed out above, the text of their supports was far more complex than a simple nose-count of who titled their !vote "support". So consider that comment redacted. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.

Protected edit request on 4 October 2014

completed Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

• Operation New Dawn in article entry leads to a disambiguation page, and the operation as a page for the U.S. in Iraq from September 2010-December 2011 doesn't exist, so it should be unlinked.
• Airstrike Agreement Keeps US Air Controllers Away From Combat - U.S Joint terminal attack controllers in Iraq have been used to call in close air support without needing to be in the combat zone itself. Kurdish and Iraqi forces call in suggested targets to JTACs in Irbil and Baghdad, which use live stream video from aircraft gathering ISR data to know where things are and plan a strike mission. Also, stats as of the end of September: more than 240 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, 1,300 tanker refueling missions, 3,800 total sorties.
• Pentagon: Medals for new Iraq mission to fall under Operation Enduring Freedom - U.S. decides personnel involved in ISIL campaign will receive Operation Enduring Freedom medal in recognition of service. Although OEF is associated with Afghanistan, it is actually defined as a broad war on terrorism operation.
• Operations in Iraq And Syria Finally to Get a Name - After 55 days and 324 airstrikes conducted against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the military decides it will give the operation a name. No real reason why it didn't have one before, explanation for that not really relevant, several names being considered, not yet decided. Should go after the paragraph in the introduction, with that text still mostly kept.

America789 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Done: Edits performed. New Dawn unlinked, name considerations added, airstrike controllers added, medal mention in Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal page. America789 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.

Edit request

not done, and not really true (yet) Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

Turkey has joined the intervention and is intervening in both Syria and Iraq. Requesting this be added to the infobox under the United States with the citation: {{cite news|url=http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/10/02/Turkish-military-given-OK-for-Syria-Iraq-intervention.html|agency=Al Arabiya|title=Turkey greenlights military ops in Syria, Iraq|date=3 October 2014|accessdate=4 October 2014}}.--Forward Unto Dawn 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.