Talk:War against the Islamic State

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 ... [1]
• 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. [2]
• 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. [3]

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)

Restructuring of Article

Article was restructured in line with the request Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 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.

---

The structure of this article makes very little sense and is difficult to follow. I don't understand why "United States ground forces" is its own section and isn't split up and put into "Military intervention in Iraq" and/or "Syria" as appropriate. Also, I would like to suggest a single section called "Response" with sub-sections "International Response" and "Public Response" (or something else to cover the U.S. and foreign media commentary) versus two freestanding sections "Response" and "International Response." Is there consensus for this change? DocumentError (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The structure of the article appears screwed up because DocumentError changed the scope of the article to include parties (Syrian Govt) that were outside the scope of the article. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We're in the process of building consensus to amend the scope of the article to fit within a more global context. DocumentError (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Which section is this taking place in because I would love to participate. -SantiLak (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You already did - "RfC - Scope of Article" ... DocumentError (talk) 07:06, 29 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.

Anti-British users?

issue dealt with in various discussions. this is not the right article for all this detail. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 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.

---

I've seen some users on here actively removing Britain when it is put in front of Australia on ALL fronts and their justification is that Britain is only contributing 6 warplanes -- that is UTTER rubbish. Firstly, Britain should be above Australia and under the US as were a major world power and any British involvement is way more significant and notable than any Australian involvement. Secondly, Britain has contributed one of it's Type 45 Destroyer warships which is thought to be protecting the US Carrier strike group in the gulf. Additionally, British involvement includes the SAS, HMS Astute (a nuclear powered submarine) which has been moved into the region and a RAF Voyager aircraft. So I cannot comprehend why Britain is seen to be BELOW Australia apart from the fact that users are annoyed that Britain's involvement is more significant and contributing more than Australia and France even. Where's Australia's special forces? Any Australian warships or naval assets? Additionally, users keep deleting Michael Fallon and Philip Hammond -- all actively involved in the British involvement as Foreign and Defence Secretary. Some fool put Nick Clegg there along with the Prime Minister. GET THIS SORTED OUT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's highly inaccurate and almost insulting to state Britain is only contributing two warplanes on the official chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 10:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Two warplanes is incorrect it is in fact 6, unless I am wrong. Firstly "VeryAngryBrit", you are wrong in saying Britain is contributing more than Australia. Australia is contributing 600 troops, and Britain is contributing 0. Australia and Britain are both committing special forces. Australia is contributing 8 warplanes while Britain contributes 6. And lastly your quotes about the warship and submarine, these are reconnaissance ships, so ergo not as important as what you are trying to say it as. I think it would be fair for Britain to be above France, but other countries equally sending large amounts of troops such as Iran, Netherlands and Belgium could all also be put in front of Britain.

Lastly this quote as were a major world power and any British involvement is way more significant and notable than any Australian involvement, is not only clearly biased but is particularly offensive, you are suggesting Australian involvement despite clearly larger than Britain's is insignificant because they are Australian.--Empire of War (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to turn the tables and say you are Anti-Australian and Anti-French.--Empire of War (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is six warplanes so why does the Wikipedia page say TWO WARPLANES. Just because only two planes flew yesterday does not mean that is all Britain is contributing, that's saying Britain is only contributing 6 planes if all six fly at the same time. I want that amended. Britain is contributing more than Australia? Yes, I think we are. Naval assets in this intervention carry A LOT of weight due to the fact other than the UK, only the US is contributing naval assets. We are contributing a WARSHIP - the Type 45 Destroyer and a Astute-class submarine - these are not "reconnaissance ships" . The Type 45 Destroyer is possibly the most advanced destroyer in the world and it is protecting the US Aircraft carrier strike group in the Gulf. Yesterday it was reported Britain bought 20 TOMAHAWK cruise missiles from the US for it's nuclear submarine, HMS Astute in the region (Britain is the only nation the US will sell Tomahawks to, says something right?). Your saying troops are more important than warships and subs which is utter tosh. Britain should be above Australia. I see you did not mention the RAF refueling Voyager either. Additionally Britain is not being credited for the role of RAF Akrotiri which is providing reconnaissance and strategic information, I want this inaccuracy amended. Britain is a major player in this intervention yet this page is treating the country like a moderate, 2nd rate contributor. Call me what you want but the inaccuracies on this page are either pure ignorance or a contemptuous attitude towards Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Source? That information should be added into the article once the lock expires but I still believe in order that the UK goes below Australia and France, there's hardly any evidence on what it hit and how, two tornado aircraft were used out of the 6 based in Cyprus. The other 4 haven't even participated in the strikes, plus Cameron was more reluctant than Obama when it came to taking decisive action against ISIS. From what I know, only two jets are being utilized... Nothing else. --Acetotyce (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhh... Source for Australia using all eight of its Super Hornets for strikes? Source for the Netherlands using all six of its F-16's for strikes? Ditto that for Denmark and Belgium?

None of those countries have used all of their fighters for strikes, but yet they're still listed in the Strength box while the RAF's six Tornado GR4's are not...

The RAF has six Tornado GR4's deployed to Cyprus to take part in Operation Shader. Only two have so far deployed because this is a low tempo operation which does not dictate for all six aircraft to be deployed. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Six Tornadoes or seven Tornadoes from the UK, six or eight whatever from Australia. We're really quibbling over very small countries making token commitments. Let's get the major pillars of this article sorted out and then we can get down into the "and also" nations. This is like disrupting the article on WWII because we can't agree on the exact strength of Brazil's contribution. DocumentError (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. Its quite disgusting to see such a tiny dispute over who's participating the most and who should be listed above the other when in reality those countries are working together. Nothing to be concerned about. They are all on the same side and Nato allies. --Acetotyce (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Small countries making token contributions?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Any nation who is not the United States is a "and also" nation. Fascinating. Britain is a country that gets dubbed a small country continually by it's detractors and yet we have; prevented Europe from being completely taken over by Nazi tyranny, won the WW1 and WW2, been the primary partner of the US in every single conflict it has got itself involved in since Vietnam, have the 6th largest economy (soon to be largest in Europe), permanent seat on the UN Security council, a nuclear weapons arsenal and worldwide strike deterrent system, member of the G8, G20 and a leading member of the WTO and NATO. The British capital is the financial and banking capital of the world and our troops are some of the world's finest. We have a global network of military bases, a blue-water navy (only three nations have this type of navy) and soon we will have the second largest set of aircraft carries in the world HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) and the HMS Prince of Wales (R09) - second only to the class of US carriers. Much larger than the single French aircraft carrier. Britain is a major leader (one of three )of the European Union - the world's largest economy (Yeah, bigger than the United States's economy), we have the largest air force in Europe and we once ran the world's largest empire ever seen. One of George Bush's justifications for going to war with Iraq was that "Great Britain backs us". Britain is a leader in so many industrial sectors i.e pharmaceuticals, automobile manufacturing, financial services etc and has the LARGEST foreign aid budget in the G8. British diplomatic service and civil service? Best in the world. Your probably also forgetting that GCHQ is a very strong force for good as is MI6 and MI5. I think the fact that the US only shares Tomahawk cruise missile technology with Britain pretty much sums our position in the world up. Ever heard of the SAS? Undeniably the greatest special forces in the world. Christ I could go on and on about how wrong you all are. You have really confirmed that this article is being dominated by ignorant biased users who really do not know anything about countries they are dismissing as "small" and "and also countries". You simply cannot expect people to not get upset when you dismiss their nations as "small" and that they are providing "token" contributions. Britain - a small country? You bet! But it is a great one.

VeryAngryBrit please learn to indent your comments, also you do realize that Britain's aircraft carriers were bought from the Australian military, did you prevent the Pacific from being completely overtaken by the Japanese Imperialists? Won WW1? But you conveniently forget the millions of casualties of Commonwealth Nations including Australia's half a million casualties. Participated in every major US Conflict? Funny I don't remember Britain in Vietnam? That was Australia and New Zealand who helped there!--Empire of War (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Please learn to indent your comments" - hardly a relevant argument but I can understand why you would use it (I am correct). You have just proven two things with that comment. You have a bias AGAINST Britain & you are ignorant like I previously stated. Why have you proved you have a bias against Britain? Your tirade of complaint about how Britain apparently failed to prevent the Pacific from being taken over by Japan and the mention of the millions of Commonwealth casualties is pure proof. Let's assess this. Britain was extremely busy being the last country in Europe standing against Hitler's third Reich and we almost fell to Germany in 1942 -- are you honestly suggesting patrolling the pacific and repelling a Japanese invasion would have been possible at such a time? France had fallen. Beligum had fallen. The Netherlands had fallen. Italy and Spain were with Hitler. Ridiculous. Commonwealth casualties? Ever heard of the British Nationality Act 1948? It gave 800,000,000 people from all over the commonwealth the right to come and settle in Britain following a devastating war - and by god did they. We welcomed them in and made them apart of our nation and identity. How dare you. Let's move onto the US and Britain being it's primary partner. You stated "Participated in every major US Conflict? Funny I don't remember Britain in Vietnam? That was Australia and New Zealand who helped there" I ACTUALLY said "since Vietnam", implying our non-involvement. Good decision that though, eh? We put our weight behind Vietnam diplomatically and in terms of providing intelligence. Australia contributed a staggering 7000 troops and New Zealand an even more impressive figure of 500 troops. Phwar, that stands tall next to the US's 500,000 troops.

& Finally, perhaps the most IRRITATING yet slightly amusing comment of yours -- "you do realize that Britain's aircraft carriers were bought from the Australian military". Oh really, please state which Aircraft carriers you are referring to? Because if I am not mistaken, which I am pretty darn sure I am not, you actually have this mixed up. BRITAIN offered to sell HMS Invincible to Australia in the early 1980s, an offer the Aussies accepted but eventually both parties pulled out of the deal and HMS Invincible was kept in the British Navy. British ships are BUILT in British docks, we don't buy foreign made warships and especially not foreign made Aircraft carriers. You clearly need to get an education on this subject. I am waiting for you to find errors in my spelling and grammar so you can form some kind of response. Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with this article in anyway. This conflict is being fought together not against each other that's what makes it a "coalition" Australia and the UK are not Enemies, they are close allies. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Acetotyce is right. This argument has nothing to do with this article. SantiLak (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Acetotyce is correct. If we had every little cross-border rivalry come here and duke it out - UK/Australia, Belgium/Holland, Bolivia/Paraguay - this article would get nowhere. Please, back to topic. DocumentError (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I admit it has gone a little off topic but I want this article amended to better credit the United Kingdom. If it does not amended I will simply edit it myself when the lock expires and will put up serious protest if it yet again modified with anti-British bias. The UK is contributing more than Australia and to simply put "David Cameron" and "Nick Clegg" is also very lazy. The listing that the UK is only contributing two warplanes is also a clear bias against Britain when it is known that Britain is contributing six to the operation. Is Australia flying all it's aircraft at the same time? BIAS, BIAS and oh yeah, BIAS. Where is Philip Hammond and Michael Fallon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.35.11 (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you do that, editing privileges for IP editors may be completely removed for this article. We can't have the thread disrupted over a "whose is bigger" quibble between Lilliput and Rurritania. DocumentError (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Boots on the ground?The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Who ever is moderating this page is clearly anti-British as continual requests from multiple users to accurately modify the UK's contribution has been IGNORED and/or DELETED as if they were never there. HERE IS THE UK'S CONTRIBUTION.

• UK – A Voyager A330 inflight refueling aircraft was also in used since September 28th. 2 Tornado GR4 fighter bombers are listed, but not the refuling tanker. There are 6 Tornado GR4 stationed in Cyprus in total so who has put two. A C-130 Hercules cargo plane, 4 Chinook helicopters, along with personnel from 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment and UK Special Forces. Additionally, the British Royal Navy has contributed HMS Defender and HMS Astute to the British Iraqi operations. All such contributions should be added or Wikipedia is not fulfilling it's role as an accurate source of information.
• 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
• 6 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft
• 1 Type 45 destroyer
• 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
• 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.

The classes and sectors

The UK has 6 aircraft in Cyprus and Australia has some troops in the UAE. We could have 2 coulombs, 1 on pledges and 1 on actual combatants over/in Iraq and Syria.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 16:27, 29 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.

Yeah.90.244.94.220 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

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.

RfC - Syrian Inclusion

Should Syrian government forces military actions against ISIS be removed or not? This is different from the RfC earlier which addressed whether only US allied forces should be included. To be clear Support means that you support the removal of Syrian government forces-Oppose means you oppose the removal of Syrian government forces. - SantiLak (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief Opinion

Please briefly give your opinion and explain why - SantiLak (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The Syrian government forces should not be included in the article. The Syrian regime forces have been fighting ISIS for some time before this intervention as part of the Syrian Civil War and their actions against them continue to be part of that. Countries like Iran on the other hand should be included because they are intervening against ISIS, not fighting them in a civil war. The Syrian regime forces should be excluded. SantiLak (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Syria can't "intervene" in their own civil war. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose with Extreme Prejudice This RfC is invalid and its results, regardless of what they are, will be null and void. It is (a) duplicate of one currently running, (b) loaded to create a favorable outcome for the nominator (Syrian forces are already included in article, therefore, "Support" !votes should be to support their removal, not support their inclusion [as per RfC guidelines]). DocumentError (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support the distinct actions taken against ISIS should not include Syrian regime forces because other forces are not coordinating their response with the Syrian government. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose America has been intervening in the Syrian Civil War since 2011. Participation in the Syrian Civil War does not preclude participation in this intervention. Syrian operations inside of Iraqi territory (far outside their civil war) should also be noted. Juno (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing that participation of any party in the Syrian civil war means that they can't be included here, I am arguing that specifically the Syrian government forces are not intervening. Their actions in Syria against ISIS and against ISIS in Iraq for a small part are not part of the intervention against ISIS ie US, Iranian, Russian or otherwise but part of a continuing civil war. If this article was Military conflicts with ISIS then it might make sense because they are in conflict with ISIS but it is on an intervention against ISIS. They are just continuing their fight against ISIS in the context of their civil war which they have been fighting for 3 years now. The article is on an intervention in 2014 by different countries and groups but not Syria who are just continuing a battle against ISIS as part of their civil war. - SantiLak (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why specifically Syria? America has been fighting in the Syrian Civil War for 3 years as well. Juno (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

¡Punto excelente! DocumentError (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that any parties to the Syrian civil war can not be included in the intervention but just Syria for a very clear reason. Syria has been fighting this civil war for 3 years against multiple parties including ISIS. America also really hasn't been fighting, they trained a few rebels and gave limited military aid, that's not really fighting in the war against one party or another and their fight in that case was against the Syrian government not ISIS. Syria is not intervening in the their own civil war, they are just continuing a fight they had against ISIS from before. I am not arguing the broad exclusion of any parties that might have had a part in the civil war but the Syrian government forces should. They are not intervening against them now, they are continuing their fight. The Syrian government might try and spin it to seem like they are part of this broad fight against terrorism that includes Iran and the US and others but they really aren't, they are just continuing a fight against ISIS that is part of their civil. I really don't see any reason to include them in the article as part of the intervention. - SantiLak (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment-Syria is not a party to this intervention. This is still the Syrian Civil war for them. Intervention of these outside parties does not change that. Syria simply taking action against ISIS is not enough for inclusion in this article. This is not to say that Syria has no place in this article. They very well may. That will depend on the situation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the total exclusion of information on certain things about the Syrian government forces, I just don't think that they should for example be shown as a combatant against IS in the infobox. - SantiLak (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not make the characterization that you did.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that you did, nor was I intending to if I did on accident. I am just responding to the comments of other editors on the RfC. - SantiLak (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No need to go after Serialjoepsycho, SantiLak. Everyone's allowed to express different opinions here. DocumentError (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how I am going after them. They just misunderstood my comments. - SantiLak (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They aren't going after me.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the issue more here - SantiLak (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reformatting the RfC as per the RfC guidelines. The RfC is still invalid, however, as (a) it is still a duplicate with minor wording differences designed to effect a different outcome, (b) it is not neutrally worded considering use of the charged term "regime." The phrase "Syrian forces" or "Syrian government forces" would make sense and it's unclear why you chose to inject the word "regime." If you are brought here by the bot, please register your opinion in the current and ongoing RfC for this topic, here. DocumentError (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it to just "Syrian government forces." - SantiLak (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the blatant POV language from the RfC. The RfC remains invalid, however, as it is still a duplicate of an active RfC, with minor wording differences, designed to effect a different outcome. DocumentError (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

A side note, you have called the American government a regime in the previous RfC you referenced, I removed regime anyway to make sure of total neutrality. It is not a duplicate and it does not have minor wording differences as it addresses one specific country, not all countries not allied with the US. It is not designed to effect a different outcome but to get comments from other editors on Syria only, not Iran, not Russia, not the US, just Syria. - SantiLak (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to strike it and replace it with "government" if you'd AGF and just ask me to do that. We use "U.S. regime" in everyday parlance so, if I let it slip here, it was purely a human mistake that is easily corrected without contortions and drama. DocumentError (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Another user changed it and I did AGF, I was just reminding you of it. I also think I asked you about it when you created the broader RfC in the discussions section. SantiLak (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And what did I say when you asked? DocumentError (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, I found what you said in response: "I'd rather not get into a comparative political discussion here. Let's keep this focused on the RfC" - SantiLak (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like sound advice. DocumentError (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to start one, I just wanted to raise the issue by: "On a side note, what do you mean by US regime, regime suggests an authoritarian system of government which is why it has been used to refer to Assad's government but I hardly think it should be used to refer to the US gov." - SantiLak (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into a comparative political discussion here. Thanks, SL. DocumentError (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur, this is not the place for such a thing. Thanks, DocE, - SantiLak (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

All of the criteria I have seen proposed that would exclude Syrian forces (namely "already fighting in Civil War", and "doesn't play well with others") all apply to other actors as well (America, and Iran, to name a few). Juno (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As part of a major cleanup I have clearly laid out the partieDuplicate ofs to the intervention and split off a fair amount of material that accumulated in the early rush of moment by moment updates. In the current arrangement Syria Govt gets a spot in the infobox as local because it is being assisted by Iran and Hezbollah (a nod to the pro-Iran/Hezbollah anti USA crowd here). I trust that everyone will see how their opinions were recognized. I'll add that major players in the intervention all have their own article, but there obviously can't be a 2014 Syrian intervention in Syria article - we call that the Syrian Civil War. Syria bombing ISIL in Iraq is a natural extension of the Syrian Civil War (spillover), not an anti-terrorism effort. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Iran and Russia (and Hezbollah and others) have been fighting inside Syria for 3 years. Juno (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Note - The previous RfC's on all country involvement did not reach a consensus on whether all other countries should be included and most were tied or very close to ties, that includes one on just the Syrian army, different than this one. That one on the Syrian army finished with a close tie but DocError still decided to add the Syrian army even though a consensus had not been reached in favor of such an action. - SantiLak (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification - The Syrian army was added based on a discussion question in which only two people participated, both of whom supported it. After the Syrian army was added, additional people expressed opposition, and some more people expressed support. That's when the RfC was initiated. If you need me to dig up the diffs and post a timeline, I'm happy to do that, but I'd prefer not to go to all that work, SantiLak. It would be less disruptive to the community if you just retracted your accusation. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Because of that tie in the RfC you should have removed the addition because there was not a consensus in support of the addition. I don't see how me noting previous RfC's lack of consensus is disruptive but everyone is entitled to interpret comments in their own way. - SantiLak (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "tie" in the RfC. RfCs typically run for a month. It's been a little more than a week. Also, RfC's aren't votes. DocumentError (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well then you should have at least waited for the RfC to finish before adding the material. Also they aren't votes but when there is not a consensus in support of addition you probably should not add material. - SantiLak (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The material was added prior to the RfC being opened, as already explained above. DocumentError (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We are just going in circles on this. I was just noting the other RfC. - SantiLak (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to communicate at this point. DocumentError (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that appears to be an accurate statement. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we differentiate American servicemen killed in "non-combat" and those in "combat"?

My belief is that we should not. It seems that articles about other conflicts do not. What are your thoughts? Juno (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed for precedent reasons stated DocumentError (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree considering the fact that it was not really in action but out at sea in support of the operation in what appears to be an accident, I do think that we should distinguish. If it were someone shot down or crashed in a combat mission then just KIA would make sense but not in the circumstances. - SantiLak (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of Factions in Infobox

A RfC has already concluded that the members of the American-led faction will be ordered in their section of the infobox so that the U.S. is always first and all other nations follow it in alphabetical order. How should each of the faction sections be ordered in the infobox?

- alphabetical order by "leading" nation in faction (short form: alphabetical) | immediate effect - Iran & Co. is first listed

- size of faction, by number of participating actors (short form: actors) | immediate effect - USA & Co. is first listed

- size of faction, by number of personnel in-theater (short form: personnel) | immediate effect - Iraq and/or Syria is first listed (assuming Syria is not delisted due to RfC)

- date of first commitment (short form: date) | immediate effect - Iraq and/or Syria is first listed (assuming Syria is not delisted due to RfC)

- number of fatalities (short form: KIA) | immediate effect - Iraq and/or Syria is first listed (assuming Syria is not delisted due to RfC)

- America always in #1 spot (short form: USA) | immediate effect - USA & Co. is first listed

DocumentError (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion in Brief

• Alphabetical - For purposes of consistency, and due to the fluid nature of the situation, an alphabetical listing will offer the most page stability and eliminate the need for future edits. DocumentError (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  I second that. It looks fine right now. - SantiLak (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  No. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that a !vote for "America always in #1 spot" or "size of faction, by number of participating actors"? DocumentError (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

---

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".[4] 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.

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)

October Airstrikes (USDoD)

So I have followed the Department of Defense's airstrike data and here is what I have found for October so far.

October 1 - "In Syria, three strikes near Kobani destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle, an ISIL artillery piece, and an ISIL tank." "In Iraq, three strikes northwest of Mosul destroyed two ISIL armed vehicles, destroyed an ISIL occupied building, and struck two ISIL fighting positions. One strike in the vicinity of Haditha Dam destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle while another strike northwest of Baghdad destroyed two armed vehicles."DoD1

October 2 - "In Syria, one strike near Kobani destroyed an ISIL checkpoint. Another strike in Syria, north of Sinjar Mountain, damaged an ISIL tank. One airstrike west of Raqqah destroyed an ISIL tank, while one strike east of Aleppo struck multiple ISIL facilities." "In Iraq, one strike northwest of Baghdad destroyed two ISIL armed vehicles and two other ISIL vehicles. Two strikes northwest of Mosul destroyed an ISIL Humvee and damaged two others, destroyed three armed vehicles and damaged another, damaged another vehicle and damaged an ISIL building. One strike east of Fallujah destroyed an ISIL vehicle. Two strikes west of Ramadi damaged an ISIL building and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, while one strike northeast of Sinjar destroyed an ISIL vehicle."DoD2

October 3 - "In Syria, one strike south of Al Hasakah destroyed an ISIL garrison, while one strike southeast of Dayr Az Zawr destroyed two ISIL tanks. Two strikes north of Ar Raqqah struck two modular oil refineries and an ISIL training camp, while another strike northeast of Aleppo struck an ISIL occupied building. One strike against an ISIL artillery piece west of Ar Raqqah was not successful." "In Iraq, one strike north of Sinjar destroyed two ISIL armed vehicles, while two strikes northeast of Fallujah struck ISIL fighters."DoD3 As of October 3 "248 airstrikes in Iraq and 86 in Syria".DoD4

October 5 - "In Syria, one strike northwest of Al Mayadin destroyed an ISIL bulldozer, two ISIL tanks and destroyed another ISIL vehicle. Two strikes northwest of Ar Raqqah struck a large ISIL unit and destroyed six ISIL firing positions." "In Iraq, four strikes northeast of Fallujah struck two mortar teams, a large ISIL unit and two small ISIL units. One strike southeast of Hit destroyed two ISIL Humvees. One strike northeast of Sinjar destroyed an ISIL Humvee."DoD5

October 6 - "In Syria, one strike destroyed an ISIL tank near Taqba Airfield west of Raqqah, one destroyed two ISIL fighting positions south of Kobani, and another southeast of Dayr az Zawr destroyed an ISIL tank. All aircraft left the strike areas safely, officials said. In Iraq, two strikes northeast of Fallujah struck two small ISIL units and destroyed two mortar placements and a bunker. An airstrike west of Ramadi damaged an ISIL-held building. Belgium and the United Kingdom participated in these airstrikes, Centcom officials said, and all aircraft left the strike areas safely."DoD6

October 7 - "In Syria, two airstrikes west of Hasakah successfully struck multiple ISIL buildings, including an air observation building and staging areas, officials said, and another airstrike northeast of Dayr az Zawr successfully struck an ISIL staging area and an IED production facility. An airstrike south of Kobani destroyed three ISIL armed vehicles and damaged another, and another strike southeast of Kobani destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle carrying anti-aircraft artillery. Two airstrikes southwest of Kobani damaged an ISIL tank, and another strike south of Kobani destroyed an ISIL unit. In addition, an airstrike southwest of Rabiyah struck a small group of ISIL fighters." "In Iraq, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle firing on Kurdish Peshmerga forces northeast of Sinjar. Three more airstrikes northeast of Sinjar destroyed three ISIL armed vehicles and struck a small group of ISIL fighters." DoD7

October 8 - "In Syria, four airstrikes south of Kobani destroyed an ISIL armored personnel carrier, destroyed three ISIL armed vehicles and damaged a fourth, and destroyed an ISIL artillery piece. A fifth airstrike, southwest of Kobani, destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle; a sixth airstrike, at the southern edge of Kobani, destroyed an ISIL artillery piece. Two airstrikes northwest of Ar Raqqah successfully struck an active ISIL training camp and associated ISIL fighters. An airstrike northwest of Dayr az Zawr destroyed an ISIL tank." "n Iraq, an airstrike east of Fallujah destroyed an ISIL checkpoint and an ISIL armed vehicle. An airstrike in western Ramadi destroyed three ISIL-held buildings and damaged two more, destroyed two ISIL anti-aircraft artillery pieces, and destroyed an ISIL unit. An airstrike northwest of Ramadi destroyed an ISIL checkpoint. An airstrike northeast of Sinjar Mountain destroyed an ISIL armed vehicle; another airstrike northeast of Sinjar against an ISIL vehicle was unsuccessful." DoD8

I placed this information to update the losses of ISIL. I can go back to September as well but I just wanted to ask if this should be placed in the infobox first and if so, I can try to contribute the rest (back to 10 September I believe).--ZiaLater (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since these are all press releases from the U.S. government, this should all be rephrased as (for instance) "the United States claimed, in Syria, four airstrikes south of Kobani ..." unless we can attribute it to a RS. DocumentError (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we place this in the infobox saying something like:

• X losses (United States)
• X vehicles destroyed (United States)

It would attribute this information to the United States.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

These really belong in the country specific articles as they are detailing airstrikes while this is the larger summary article. Considering that most RS's talking about airstrikes reference DOD and CENTCOM press releases, I don't think we need to put "the United States claimed." They are just stating that they carried out airstrikes on certain locations, if they were press releases about civilian casualties then it would be appropriate to add "the pentagon claimed that there were minimal casualties" or something like that because civilian casualties are often disputed while whether or not they actually bombed a place really isn't. - SantiLak (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Press releases are not RS; we can't say "the U.S. carried out an airstrike on XYZ" unless a RS confirms the U.S. carried out an airstrike on XYZ. I have no problem with saying the U.S. claims this, or the U.S. claims that, however. DocumentError (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that RS's reference the press releases as evidence of airstrikes it seems like they can be used. Whether or not they carried out an airstrike does not seem to be something that we need to add "claim" to, something actually contested such as casualties would make sense but not whether they carried out an airstrike. - SantiLak (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen these RS', the only thing posted here are links to press releases from an unreliable source (the USG), so I can't comment on that. Also, that's not how RS works; i.e. we assume something is true unless it "seems fishy." This is Wikipedia, not Scooby Doo. DocumentError (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For example here is a link to a Reuters source talking about airstrikes on the 10th. They are referencing a DOD press release when talking about the different airstrikes. The RS's reference the DOD releases as evidence of the strikes. - SantiLak (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Reuters qualifies each claim of airstrikes in that article with the following: "U.S. Central Command said on Friday," "the U.S. military said," "U.S. Central Command said." just like I've suggested. DocumentError (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that whether or not they actually carried out airstrikes is not really a sort of disputed thing where as you suggested we should add "US claims". It seems quite unnecessary as despite different group's and governments opinions on the airstrikes, I don't believe there is anyone contesting whether they are occurring or not. There are people contesting civilian casualties and whether the strikes should even be occurring but not whether they are occurring. There doesn't seem to be a need to add "US claims" or something similar when describing whether a strike occurred or not. Things such as civilian casualties make perfect sense as there are almost always different accounts but it seems incredibly unnecessary when writing about whether a strike occurred or not in a certain place. - SantiLak (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. I maintain my total opposition for reasons previously stated. DocumentError (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And I still maintain my complete support for reasons previously stated. - SantiLak (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. DocumentError (talk) 10:19, 12 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)

Effectiveness Section

Since, by all accounts, the military intervention is a bust and IS is making swift and stunning advances on all fronts, I think an "Effectiveness" or similarly titled section should be added to this entry. Right now this article reads like an Order of Battle, rather than a normal WP conflict article. Discuss. DocumentError (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of this massive consensus among experts that the intervention is a bust. That would help the discussion. - SantiLak (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain and Italy role on the Coalition

Spain to send 300 soldiers to Iraq to train the Iraqi Army, not to mention the Patriot missiles and 130 Spanish soldiers deployed to the Turkish border in order to defend Turkey from the Islamic State:

http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412867011_131222.html http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/09/17/actualidad/1410968023_933935.html

Also, according to the sources, Spain may also give weapons to the Peshmerga.

Also, Italy has given weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga. The Wiki article should also mention the Paris summit were the full Coalition was created (at the Wales NATO summit the US started to create a coalition, and then other countries like Spain and some others joined).

This Wiki article should include the Spanish and Italian flags and contributions to the Coalition against IS in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This info probably should also be added to 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq considering it relates to Iraq interventions. - SantiLak (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Both contributions are accurately reflected in the infobox under support, since these countries have not engaged in combat in theater. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of Strength Infobox, Ordering of American, Australian, French and British Airstrikes sections

Sorry if either of these issues have been raised before. I did search the page, but found nothing.

My first issue is...

How is the strength infobox currently ordered?

I seem to remember someone mentioning that it was ordered by "combat" units. If that is the case, then why is the United Kingdom listed so low and why is Australia listed so high?

The UK has deployed 8 Tornado GR4's.

Australia has deployed only 6 Super Hornets.

The UK has a TLAM-equipped SSN permanently assigned to the Gulf.

Some users seem to think that Australia's troops are deployed in a combat role and using that as an excuse to "tip the balance" in favour of Australia, but that's simply not the case:

Australia's special forces are waiting to deploy in a training and advisory role. They have not yet deployed and they are not being deployed in a combat role. The source provided explicitly states this.

The only other "troops" Australia has deployed is personnel from the RAAF, which are non-combat personnel with the only role of supporting and maintaining Australian aircraft. They have no combat role in any way, whatsoever.

I also call into question the reliability of some of the figures quoted for Australian personnel. The two sources provided are from Al Jazeera and the Guardian which are both notoriously unreliable for defence-related journalism. I'd recommend removing those numbers completely until we find more reliable sources.

As for the UK, its special forces have been active in Iraq for a while now and have been involved in combat alongside Kurdish forces. Like Australian special forces when they eventually arrive, UKSF has been engaged in a training and advisory role, too.

As for regular troops, the UK deployed members of The Yorkshire Regiment into Irbil to secure the ground for a rescue mission. It was also revealed today that the same troops are being deployed in a training and advisory role.

So, to summarise:

• The UK has deployed more combat aircraft than Australia.
• The UK has a TLAM-equipped SSN permanently assigned to the Gulf
• The UK's special forces have been active in Iraq for longer than Australian SF and have engaged in combat.
• Australia has no ground troops or personnel deployed in a combat role.

The United Kingdom should be listed second-only to the United States in the Strength infobox.

Now, my second issue is...

The Ordering of the American, Australian, British and French airstrikes sections

I propose that we order these sections chronologically instead of alphabetically. So, have the "American airstrikes" section first, followed by the sections for France, the UK and then Australia.

That should be all. I look forward to hearing some responses. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A consensus was reached here in favor of alphabetical after the US in which you participated that dealt with the final disposition of the UK-Australia ordering dispute. The strength infobox is no different and follows the disposition of the RfC. - SantiLak (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the belligerents box being listed alphabetically, however, if you check the article page, the strengths box is clearly not listed alphabetically. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an error that needs to be corrected. I am alphabetizing it now. - SantiLak (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have alphabetized it. - SantiLak (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It was obviously overlooked earlier but now it is resolved. - SantiLak (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers. I have noticed France has been removed from the list too. I can't seem to find a reason as to why. France is a pretty significant contributor to this intervention, with 9 Rafale fighters involved.

I'll look into it and add france's contributions. - SantiLak (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. - SantiLak (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jordanian soldier

The "Casualties and losses" section lists a Jordanian soldier as being wounded though (not confirmed), either a Jordanian soldier was wounded and there are credible reports, in which case it must be cited or it must be removed as wikipedia is not the place for speculation.--Phospheros (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently during the failed raid in Northern Syria to rescue hostages a Jordanian solder was wounded. It is questionable if he was even there. Agree, cite it or delete. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

here 177.182.52.194 (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this event be added to the article? What exactly are you suggesting? - SantiLak (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

There was a section regarding Turkey that I have replaced at the bottom with a header that currently just contains a link to the main article on Turkish involvement.

Why previous text removed: The previous text did not appear to belong in the article. It was entitled "Blowback in Turkey and Western Europe", and it contained a few sentences about Kurdish and protests over Turkey's and others' failure to protect Kobane and Kurdish areas more generally. However, it was not clear how the incidents could be classified as "blowback" from the coalition intervention that is the subject of the article. It might be worthwhile as a summary of the consequences of Turkish decisions to limit involvement; however, there is currently no discussion of Turkish involvement to anchor that kind of information.

Further work: It would probably be good if a summary could be written of some of the information in the main article to include under the new section's link.

Section level/placement: At the moment, the Turkish position with regard to the conflict did not obviously seem to warrant placement among the list of allied members conducting the strikes and forming the main intervention coalition. So it is sitting off on its own at the bottom now, but it might be a good idea for contributors to review if there is a better structural way of working the issue in.

AdamColligan (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkey is clearly supporting ISIS, they have publicly funded the Al Nusra front to destabilise Syria, and are now launching air strikes against Kurdish strongholds.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/14/turkish-jets-bombard-kurdish-positions-pkk--Empire of War (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)