Jump to content

Talk:War against the Islamic State

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Empire of War (talk | contribs) at 10:46, 5 October 2014 (→‎Section for Replies and Long Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

American only?

With the British and French already or about to engage (humanitarian aid, arms, possible air strikes), does the article title need to be expanded? Or does the UK & French involvement belong in the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive only?Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our RSs seem to be covering this as though it is an American conflict, which other allies are supporting. This seems to generally be the case, especially in the begining, but maybe the British effort has spun off to the point where it could be its own article? Juno (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The supporting countries are getting out of hand. When does a country get added to the infobox?
  • 1. Saying something is good (Vatican)?
  • 2. Sending humanitarian aid (Canada)?
  • 3. Flying in to deliver humanitarian aid?
  • 4. Sending arms? (that seems like support)
  • 5. Personal and equipment/aircraft used for military strikes (then they should be a belligerent in own right) Legacypac (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmmm...very interesting point about the line between supporters and co-belligerents
1. Agreed, the Vatican is awesome and I am always intrigued any time I see them in a conflict infobox but words alone do not a supporter make and they have expressed similar sentiments in the past.
2+3+4 At this point, I see the scope of the article (and of this intervention as well) as including the aid. Rendering aid was listed as one of the Causus Belli by Obama when he escalated and it continually mentioned as an American objective. If a nation is materially supporting that American objective (and at some point maybe we will have to draw a line between supporting and "supporting") I think that they can be included as supporting American efforts the same way that Russia is (and I think should continue to be) included as supporting the efforts of the Iraqi government.
5. I would like to see what precedent there is for this, but I think you're right. Britain now has men on the ground and, I think, has carried our airstrikes. They should probably be listed as a combatant. Any idea where this line has been in the coverage of other conflicts? Juno (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia send a bunch of combat jets to the Iraq Central Gov, so they are clearly "supporting" Iraq Central. UK briefly sent SAS forces to Mt Sinjar, and aircraft over Northern Iraq, so they seem to be crossing the line to Belligerent. Canada pledged humanitarian aid, like France, but does aid only make you a supporter or just "nice". Germany is talking about sending in arms (though they don't normally sell arms into combat zones. I don't know what the precedent is, maybe someone can chime in or we can find one. Reactions is a good place for the Vatican reaction. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where it fits in, but Denmark just dispatched 7 F-16s to combat roles over Iraq in addition to the C-130 already sent. All of it came upon request by the US, says Danish broadcaster DR[1] 130.225.180.119 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Opinions here are split pretty much right down the middle, and both sides make good arguments. Extending the discussion wouldn't be useful considering this has received higher than average participation already and has lasted more than two weeks. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 04:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


2014 American intervention in Iraq → 2014 United States intervention in Iraq – The term "American" can be controversial especially to Latin American countries. Most Wikipedia articles on US military actions use "United States" over "American". (examples: United States invasion of Panama, United States invasion of Iraq). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Gimelthedog (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The United States (of Mexico?) is no more precise than American is. Everyone on the globe knows American means USA. The real issue is what does the article get called when the UK, Aussies, and maybe the French participate in strikes (cause they are all talking about it)Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - American is the common demonym in English and would be the name most international users understand in their native tongues outside of Spanish and Portuguese. In fact, this issue of US vs. American is typically only an issue in Latin America-understandably so-and usually isn't an issue elsewhere. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17 Av 5774 18:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you check Timeline of United States military operations, which has links to all of the articles for other American military actions, they all say American save and United States only comes up in the name of the actual list, so WP:CONSISTENCY would call for the opposite. And having material be offensive to a small number of readers is not grounds for change according to WP:Offensive material#Notes. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21 Av 5774 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
French intervention in Mexico
French campaign in Egypt and Syria
French invasion of Russia
French conquest of Tunisia
British colonization of the Americas
British rule in Burma
Japanese occupation of the Philippines
Japanese occupation of Hong Kong
Japanese occupation of Malaya
Japanese invasion of French Indochina
German military administration in occupied France during World War II
German occupation of Estonia during World War II
Russian colonization of the Americas
Russian invasion of Manchuria
2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
–Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only provided example is the Panama one. The Iraq one redirects to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The rest of the articles cited all use American as the adjective and the only example you provided that uses United States as an adjective is the government agencies one whereas the others all use United States as a noun. Outside of Latin America, America generally does mean having to do with the United States unless one says "The Americas". That's just the way things are and the article should be named according to how things are and the naming of the article should be in accordance with reality. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22 Av 5774 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:AT of course currently reads Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Common name is only one of the criteria, and even on this one the current title does not have a significant advantage; Both are in common use. The proposed title is more recognisable owing to being unambiguous, about equally concise (four syllables each), perhaps a very little less natural, more precise, and far more consistent to other articles and to categories. No contest. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As per Egsan Bacons reasoning. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and most vehement oppose – This is absolutely absurd. "American" in the English language is unambiguous. There is no question as to what an English-speaker means when they say "American". This is the English Wikipedia, and we use English here. Adjectival forms are appropriate in this instance, as one can see by 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Are you going to change that one to "2014 Russian Federation intervention in Ukraine"? No! It doesn't make any sense, and it is improper grammar. The whims of foreign language speakers do not dictate how the English language works. Until we suddenly name Americans to "United States people", there will be no use of "United States" in the manner dictated by the above parties. WP:UCN dictates that we use "American". WP:NATURALNESS dictates that we use "American" (the natural way to refer to stuff about the United States is "American" in English). WP:CONCISE dictates the usage of "American" (it is shorter and instantly recognisable). The idea that this use of the word is "American-centric" is utterly absurd. Wikipedia is not meant for righting great wrongs. We are not here to make political statements about how "wrong" common usage is. No, we follow the sources and what people use. English-speakers use American, so too do we here. I also think that, per WP:TITLECHANGES, titles should only be changed if absolutely necessary and justified. This is absolutely not necessary, and is essentially frivolous POV pushing. RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Rearrangements needed

What do those Pics and videos want there near the reference list? Mhhossein (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a "Criticisms" section

The existing "Analysis" section is incapable of presenting the opposing analysis and opinions against US intervention in Iraq. I'm preparing a "Criticism" section and will merge the "Analysis" in it. Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would softly oppose the creation of a separate "Criticism" section, but I do very much agree that the "Analysis" section needs to contain more criticism. Juno (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Juno: Thanks for your civil response. According to the amount of existing criticisms, we can have at least a subsection entitled "Criticisms". However I try to add some criticisms. Mhhossein (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections

I am going to try to order the sections loosely in terms of chronology (with importance being a tie-breaker), which I view as being Ground Forces-> Airstrikes-> Humanitarian -> Arms sales-> Political involvement with Analysis at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Separate section for supporters?

What would you guys think about only leaving 2 (or 1 or 3) of the larger supporters of the US effort in the infobox and moving everything else down into the body of the article, with an explanation in the infobox, of course. I think that I recall seeing this approach in a few other conflicts. Juno (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, or have any other preferred way of sorting things, I think that I will move forward with this over the next few days. Juno (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with that. In fact it helps organize the infobox especially if it is cluttered. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Qasem Soleimani in the Commanders section

I remember some controversy regarding this and wanted to talk it out here. I think that our sources support inclusion, with him commanding some of the most significant forces in counrty. Would be feel aesthetically better if his name were less close to the President's? Juno (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to throw him back in, feel free to discuss here. Juno (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Foley Raid

The raid took place in Syria and it is mentioned in the article, in my opinion it should be in a different article as the topic is about the "intervention in Iraq"... not Syria, secondly the american soldier casualty included in the info-box is a part of the raid and not a part of the intervention itself. The raid took place in 2012 not 2014 and should be moved to a separate article, which I recommend Syrian Civil War or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as the raid took place in Syria during the height of the civil war as ISIS operated in Syria at the time --Acetotyce (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to see American fighting in Syria as part of the broader conflict in Iraq, but I could be wrong. It is possible that this article should be renamed something like "2014 American intervention in the Gulf" or "2014 American Gulf War". I believe that the raid took place this summer. Regardless of all of these things, there probably is enough coverage for a separate article on the raid itself. Juno (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that sounds like a good idea Juno, as right of now from what I have seen in the news, American intervention is likely to spread to Syria and the fact that there was a raid inside Syria makes me feel this article should be renamed to one of the two options you pointed above. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove wounded American?

I noticed that this article added the wounded American to the casualty list once the story of the raid in Syria was leaked. However, while that raid involved the same group the intervention in Iraq targeted (the IS) I feel like it is still outside the scope of this article, which as the title says, is the Iraqi intervention. If American airstrikes later occur in Syria and this article is broadened to include both countries, or a separate one on the Syrian campaign is written, then it would be fair to include this casualty of the mission in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.228.200 (User talk:98.164.228.200 • Special:Contributions/98.164.228.200) 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose I generally view American actions in Syria as part of the same conflict. Given, that probably does reflect a weakness in the current naming and it should probably shift to something like "2014 American intervention in the Gulf" or "2014 American Gulf War". It is also worth noting that news of the actions in Syria was not leaked, but spread by the Obama administration itself. Juno (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if renamed - I agree with Juno on this one, if the article is renamed then there is no need to remove the wounded american soldier casualty but if there is no rename I may see it differently. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syria is not in the Gulf region. If the Americans make a more concerted effort in Syria I suggest renaming the article to 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


2014 American intervention in Iraq → 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria – It is now clear that the U.S. has been active militarily in both Iraq and Syria, this includes Reconnaissance[1] missions and even a raid to rescue [2]James Foley (which didn't succeed). To keep the article "2014 American intervention in Iraq" would be quite problematic as a large portion of this article seems to show content related to America militarily involved in Syria. There are many sources to support my reasoning, most of which are listed on the article and a few linked here in this template. Acetotyce (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree on specifics, largely agree on principle I think that these two American interventions (Iraq and Syria) and generally coming to be seen as part of a single effort on behalf of the United States. I want to discuss this idea more and try to generate different naming possibilities. While I do agree, in principle that we are dealing with a single overarching conflict we would have to be very careful to separate the two campaigns. Many European nations have joined the American effort in Iraq, to the best of my knowledge none of them are on-board with the Syrian campaign. Some of the local alliances are also inverted, depending on which side of the boarder one is on. Juno (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed true from the way things are playing out now, it seems that more support is likely in the not so distant future. But on the grand scale of things the US appears to be taking the lead in the military support role with support to Peshmerga, PKK and other groups going against ISIL, not to forget that along with airstrikes, there is also weapon supply too. Whereas the other supporters are closely tied to Humanitarian aid and some military aid. But that is what it is as of now, and is most likely to change eventually as this conflict is still ongoing and things will keep on developing as time progresses. My take is the next group to support as much of an extent as what America supports will be the UK but in my perspective it will be well coordinated both in Iraq and Syria. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it is highly likely that other western countries will follow the US into Syria, so far they have not. We cannot say that, for instance, "The UK has contributed to American efforts in X conflict", because so far they've only committed to the Iraq campaign. Juno (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The border in Anbar between Syria and Iraq is no longer well-defined. With Syria testing it's limits by bombing a border town in Iraq [3] and the fact that militants and vehicles can easily pass through IS checkpoints, I view this conflict as happening in one large battlefield (Greater Syria) instead of two soverign terroritories. ~Technophant (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Because this conflict is still ongoing there is still things bound to change rapidly, especially with the recent execution of the second hostage. This conflict is bound to expand into Syria, and more countries will join in. Perhaps that's the explanation for the lack of votes here... --Acetotyce (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I too believe that it is outrageously likely that American troops will roll over the boarder into Syria in greater numbers (or possibly have done so already, in secret) we cannot write that they have without RSs stating so. Juno (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed my support as there is now 2014 American operations in Syria. This would have to be a merge discussion not a rename discussion.~Technophant (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Technophant: Ah good catch! It seems that we may not need this RFPM in such an event. I will consider withdrawing this request and replacing it with a merge request instead when I have time tomorrow. The creation of 2014 American operations in Syria is a better variant but that article will look better with the content from here. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Editor AndrewsDarlene1

Indefinitely blocked now as a sockpuppet of User:Russavia. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Germany decided to ship weapons

Please update the article. [4] Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.135.201.135 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it.David O. Johnson (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive list of countries involved

There is a list of countries that have become involved in the fight against the Islamic State; approximately 25 are identified in the article. I don't know if each one should be added to the infobox. Here is the link [5] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some infoboxes where extensive lists are included, but collapsed. Would that be an option here? Juno (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Arab countries have agreed to help.[6] They can be added too.David O. Johnson (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq/Iran/Shiite Militias as belligerents

They're fighting just as the Peshmerga are, I think it would make sense to include them as "belligerents", rather than "supporters". Juno (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Acetotyce (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 American intervention in Syria

There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. However, there does not seem to be a consensus to do this. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes likely soon to happen there needs to be a place to put these new events. I propose creating this new draft article (Draft:2014 American intervention in Syria) and reusing the infobox from this page. OR, we since there's so much overlap between these two conflicts and a porous border between these two conflicts it may serve editors and readers best to widen the scope of this article and rename it 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria.~Technophant (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant: It appears that there isn't consensus for a rename. With a new potential coalition on its way, I believe that America wont be pulling those airstrikes alone. We should suggest a name that isn't aimed directly at American involvement as more countries are opting in to combat ISIS --Acetotyce (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Acetotyce: 2014 international intervention in Iraq in Syria could be an appropite title if this happens. With the rate at which things are changing it's hard to keep up with it all.~Technophant (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, its all happening so fast but the whole scenario is very complex as US involvement in Syria means the US is dragging themselves into a multi-fronted war. At the moment it appears to be an American led battle but things are going to change in the future. Time will tell and in time we will decide on a name. I will develop a list in the coming weeks and post them here. It all depends on how this plays out. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article

I propose renaming this article, it is clear ISIS is waging war both in Iraq and Syria, I believe we should rename it to the "War on ISIS"--Empire of War (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Empire of War: The name "War on ISIS" seems a bit vague, lets wait till more of this situation develops and then we can decide on what an appropriate rename would be. I will be coming up with a list of possible names to share here in the coming week, thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it is appropriate to keep it named as 2014 American intervention in Iraq, there are now many non-American countries helping fight ISIS, so not exactly an "American Intervention".--Empire of War (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the "wait and see" approach. I agree with the assumption that the article will likely need to be changed at some point in the next few weeks. Agree that the word "American" probably needs to go. At this point, I would advocate Second Iraq War. Juno (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second Iraq War sounds the most plausible, however it is also vague since ISIS is waging war in Syria, and into Lebanon. Essentially it's a borderless conflict, and thus shouldn't be restricted to just Iraq although the base of the fighting will most likely occur there.--Empire of War (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with Second Iraq War for now with the knowledge that we will likely have to change it later? Americans will likely be on the ground in Syria and Lebanon as part of the this conflict but they're not there in numbers, as part of a unified command yet. Second Iraq War would take care of the American-centric nature of the article.
I know we're not supposed to make decisions based on assumptions, but it is also a a near certainty that this fighting will last part December and at some point the "2014" in the title will also be superfluous. "Second Iraq War" would take care of that too. Juno (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But no reliable sources are calling it the Second Iraq War. "War on ISIL" makes a lot of sense because not only is this a military conflict in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon but it involves anti-terrorism efforts around the world (ie Aussie ISIL arrests today). I am not opposed to the current title, but events are overtaking the title now. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd support "Second Iraq War" if someone could provide evidence of what the "first" Iraq War was and that there weren't any wars between them. Here's a list of suggestions. Second, this is about military intervention coming (currently) the United States and France. The war has been going on between the Iraqi army and IS before the intervention. Third, as pointed out above, no original research. Article's title must reflect the sources even if someone's 'common sense' says otherwise. Many parts of this article are a mess. Best not complicate it further. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is now multiple nations involved and France is conducting airstrikes, I would at least change the title to something like 2014 intervention in Iraq, 2014 International intervention in Iraq or the more broad 2014 International attacks on IS/ISIS/whatever. I think the wait and see stopped with the French now.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to change the name to 2014 intervention in Iraq, 2014 Western intervention in Iraq (Distinction with Daesh supports) or 2014 Franco-American intervention in Iraq--Monsieur Fou (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the next biggest contributor will be Turkey. Remember there isn't a lot of information released on this international anti-ISIS coalition, and as time progresses more countries will step in fighting against the Islamic State. "Second Iraqi War" is a bit vague as intervention in Syria is imminent, how about NATO intervention in Iraq and Syria or 2014 Iraq-Syria Air Campaign both seem to be, I'm not so sure about "NATO" in the first example. Like I said earlier, in time I will develop a list but its still too soon. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NATO intervention in Iraq and Syria is not appropriate unless it's a concerted effort lead by NATO itself, decided at the highest level within the organization. Right now, it's a few willing members with others sending aid. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate if non-NATO members are involved. 2014 Iraq-Syria Air Campaign is too specific and would make many details in the article, such as all sorts of aid, surveillance and other assistance mentioned, out of place, especially if other kinds of force are later used. For now I believe the best title would be 2014 military intervention in Iraq, just like 2011 military intervention in Libya. If it extends to Syria later, we'll see how appropriate it is to change the title again. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2014 military intervention in Iraq name that fits it well. Like I said, I wasn't sure with the name NATO in the first idea I brought up. Thanks for clearing that up. If the conflict does expand to Syria which it probably will; Should a rename to 2014 military intervention in Iraq and Syria sound appropriate? Thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was moved to 2014 military intervention against ISIS with this diff. Are we good with this? What should become of 2014 American intervention in Syria? Merge here?~Technophant (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've started a productive discussion on it in Talk:2014 American intervention in Syria, I think we should continue the discussion there. SantiLak (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very good with the move to 2014 military intervention against ISISLegacypac (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

I feel that the Obama "no strategy" quote received enough coverage to merit present inclusion. Conversely, I don't know if the Sept. 10th statement on Syrian airstrikes should be mentioned in this article. Juno (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that statement on Syrian Airstrikes should be moved out of the lead paragraph and to a separate area. Remember this conflict is bound to change and as summed up in the debate below, so is a rename of the article. As for the "no strategy" quote the day Obama came on wearing a Tan suit Exclude the tan suit should be significant but now that is basically pushed down with Obama's new Anti-ISIS coalition strategy. It should be mentioned though. --Acetotyce (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military aid

An odd rationale for removing the sourced bit. The article explicitly mentions the following:

Shalamanov does not consider the conflict in Ukraine to be the only short-term threat for Bulgarian national security, which is why our country is sending armaments to the opponents of Islamic State....According to him, the events in northern Iraq and Syria represent a growing risk that threatents our national interests. Shalamanov adds that this is an opinion that is shared among EU and NATO members.

How is this not mentioning "current" military aid ? He basically confirms that Bulgaria is sending weapons to anti-IS factions (likely the Iraqi Army) in this very conflict. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no credible source, in English, that mentions that Bulgaria is directly giving military aid in the current intervention. Unless you can provide a credible English source, it doesn't seem like it should be on the list of major countries actually currently contributing aid and advisers to the operation. Please do not undo any reverts until there is a source that speaks of a current and direct military support for the operation. If anything, it would make sense to put it under "Humanitarian Support - With Military". But then again, there is no credible source in English to confirm the claims. It also falls under the "Unnamed Eastern European Countries" category as well. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if a credible source in English does not publish the interview, we'll just skip that bit ? How informative. This is the most credible Bulgarian-language online media outlet drawing information from the Defence Minister of the country, who directly states that Bulgaria is shipping weapons and not "planning" to do so. Although not part of the source, it is very possible that the armaments are armoured vehicles and not just small arms - a contract for 150 APCs was signed in 2012 between the Iraqi Ministry of Defence and Bulgarian TEREM, yet only one had been delivered by 2013. There is no mention of humanitarian aid whatsoever, so it could not fall under that category. I will re-add the source with an English translation. Non-English sources are allowed, so I don't see what the problem here is. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Role in Airstrikes

After watching carefully to uncover Qatar's "support" role, I spotted on CTV News that Qatar did not strike any ground targets but did fly combat air patrols over Syria to attack any Syrian Govt jets that interfered in the multinational strikes (none did). That is an important combat role in hostile territory. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the title "2014 military intervention against ISIS"

1 - It is potentially limitless. By not defining who is intervening, or where, one is opening up this article to include all anti-ISIS actions in 2014. There have been considerable domestic actions taken against ISIS factions from Australia to North America, the Asad Regime undertook substantial anti-ISIS activities in 2014, as did Iran and a host of other actors not currently mentioned (reasonably so) in this article. The banner of all anti-ISIS activity undertaken by all parties everywhere in 2014 is too broad to be reasonably documented in a single article, and so for good reason this article has not attempted to do so. It should have a name that reflects this. "2014 Coalition intervention in Iraq", "2014 American-led intervention in the Middle East", something in that neighborhood: something which at least approximately describes the aggressor and the location.

2 - the military actions which this article documents have not been aimed exclusively at ISIS. American military efforts (which reasonably constitute the bulk of this article) have been aimed at a constellation of different groups. The sentence in the lead "On 23 September 2014, the U.S. military as well as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan initiated air strikes over Raqqa, Syria." is a good example of this: The sentence is well written and factual, but not actually about ISIS - those air strikes were aimed at a variety of targets.

3 - I think that the word "military" is superfluous. Juno (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all actions against ISIS are interventions. An intervention is, per Merriam-Webster, an act of involvement "in something (such as a conflict) in order to have an influence on what happens". Continuous domestic actions which have been taken undertaken against the group are not interventions, but part of the Syrian Civil War which spilled over into Iraq.
I too have objections with "against ISIS". It assumes that the reader knows what ISIS (acronym which I also would object to) is. It's also clumsy.
As for third point, since not all interventions are military, and this one is not a police intervention, or diplomatic intervention etc., the modifier "military" is not superfluous.
Problems like this arise from the fact that the article is about an ongoing event and the situation changes from day to day. I believe the best approach is to have the title contain only general information until it becomes part of history, and not news. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since US is attacking multiple groups inside Syria to defend Iraq (latest spin), can we please retitle to Iraq War III: The Search for Strategy? Hcobb (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe we can retitle it to Let's all insert our POV into article title's. SantiLak (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and Canada

Canada and Australia promised to join USA and France in Iraq but they have not carried out any military operation. Why are they mentioned as belligerents in the infobox?--Monsieur Fou (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have troops on the ground? To me, that seems to be the line from supporter to belligerent. Juno (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, they should be removed. DocumentError (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Canada has Special Forces on the ground in Iraq, has plans flying in arms and is looking at other ways to help. The Aussies have planes in region getting ready to strike, have cargo planes flying in weapons, and said they are sending ground troops. Ya, they are not big boys like the USA but they are playing a direct military role. The troops on the ground line excludes the USA too. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The news says that there are 1,800 American troops on the ground + a few thousand contractors. No matter what our politicians say, we're in. Juno (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Juno, I should have said "direct combat troops". Canada and the US have advisors on the ground, so should both be in or both out-pick your standard.Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, "advisers". The Iranians are calling their guys advisers too, just like we called our guys in Vietnam. Juno (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Syrian special forces on Monday destroyed a bridge over the Euphrates River used by Islamic State to move supplies in eastern Syria ... [7]
  • 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. [8]
  • 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. [9]
DocumentError (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. The title of the article is "2014 military intervention against ISIS." DocumentError (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree. DocumentError (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Can Wikipedia help in the fight against ISIS?

I understand Wikipedia should be an unbiased source, but I can't see why anyone would disagree with what I propose. Wikipedia should follow the American governments aim to "degrade and destroy" "ISIS".

First: We should rename "ISIS" to Daesh, Arab states already use this name to refer to "ISIS" which is used to morally degrade the terrorist organization as well as make the distinction between Muslims and the Islamic State terrorists, after all they are NOT a state they ARE a terrorist organization.

Second: We should follow the American Government's plan to "NOT make it look like an American War". I propose this by rearranging the infobox to put predominantly Arab States Before Western nations, many Arab nations and organisations such as the Kurdish Peshmerga are already performing the brunt of the fighting, so I don't see why this would be harmful anyway.

Wikipedia should NOT promote this terrorist organization like we currently are.--Empire of War (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fragment of your first sentence should have answered your question: "I understand Wikipedia should be an unbiased source." Also wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for opinion and while ISIS is a terrible organization, wikipedia is needs to be maintained as an unbiased source. SantiLak (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respect what you're saying but do you not agree we should "bend" the rules this once? "ISIS" uses social media heavily, should we not do the same to weaken it's legitimacy?--Empire of War (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a social media account, if you want to "degrade" them then use Twitter or something else. If we bent the rules ever then we would be giving up on the principles of wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we should just continue with articles that legitimize "ISIS" as a state?--Empire of War (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article's don't legitimize ISIS as a state. They make clear that it is a terrorist organization that calls itself the Islamic State. SantiLak (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I very respectfully disagree. First: Wikipedia should never follow the "American government's plan" or - for that matter - any goverment's plan. Second: terms like Daesh and Takfiri are essentially meaningless to most English speakers and this is English WP. Third: There is no ideological litmus test for editing. If Islamic State soldiers wanted to contribute to Wikipedia they, of course, are welcome to do so (provided they follow WP:COI policies), just like U.S. or British soldiers and veterans contribute to WP. DocumentError (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Islamic State soldiers wanted to contribute to Wikipedia they, of course, are welcome to do so - What a disgusting statement.--Empire of War (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point which is that anyone is free to edit wikipedia as long as they follow wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to fight their political battles as much as we might personally dislike ISIS. SantiLak (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge your disgust, however, what I said is simply a factual statement. There is no WP policy against soldiers from any state - de jure or de facto - editing Wikipedia. Islamic State soldiers, United States soldiers, Bolivian soldiers, French soldiers ... all are welcome to edit WP. If you would like to see this policy changed, you can propose it on the Talk page for WP:EDIT and, if there is consensus, a new policy prohibiting edits by IS fighters can be adopted. DocumentError (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
France announced today it will start referring to "ISIS" as Daesh, so it is not just Arab states who are using this term. And what about the infobox, why is it controversial to put Arab states in front of Western nations?--Empire of War (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't look to the French government for style guidance. The most common terms used in RS are the terms used here. As for putting Arab states in front of western nations, I am the editor who moved the Syria flag icon above the U.S. so you won't get any argument from me on that point. In terms of the other Arab states (e.g. Bahrain, et. al.); I think they're fine where they're at as the order relates to committal of forces. DocumentError (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought, but we must only go with what our sources coalesce behind. We strive to be the neutral provider of information to help our readers move forward making better choices. We must not deliberately talk down the threat of ISIS, or the level of American involvement. Bullets and hellfire missiles will solve ISIS, we just write about it. Juno (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not an advocate. This website has no business helping any sort of political or military effort -- regardless of the beliefs and positions of its editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Gazkthul (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If ISIS has its way, Wikipedia won't exist anymore, just saying.--Empire of War (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is here to help everyone. Given the high usage of Daesh in Arabic media I agree that this terminology is under represented in Wikipedia. I have also presented the case for making more use of ISIL which relates to a better translation of the 2013- name than ISIS. A number of editors have also raised long running objections to the use of the name Islamic State stating a variety of reasons. On balance though I don't think that the articles are in biased in favour of the group which is what I first thought. When first coming to the articles while feeling a sense of injustice its easy to think that the articles should take a stronger line. This is not Wikipedia's role. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3

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)[reply]

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

Date intervention started

The infobox indicates that the intervention started on June 16th, but I don't see any sources for that date in the article.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me correctly, I believe that that was the day that troops were first deployed? Juno (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Scope of Article

Should the article titled "2014 military intervention against ISIS" contain information about all nations and nation-equivalent actors involved in 2014 military actions against ISIS or should it only include nations whose military forces are operating under U.S. command, or have been declared allies of the U.S. regime?

Opinions in Brief (include only Support / Oppose / etc. and a 1-2 sentence statement here)

  • Support All nations and nation-equivalent actors should be included in an article titled "2014 military intervention against ISIS." To include only U.S.-allied nations would be to engage in WP:CSB and create an article that deals primarily with the United States-perspective and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. DocumentError (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose The Syrian regime forces should not be included in the article. SantiLak (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: same as User:SantiLak, and this RfC was started because DocumentError came up against strong consensus User: David O. Johnson, User: SantiLak User: Hello32020 against his unilateral dramatic shift in the focus of the article, a shift that (from comments above) seems deeply politically motivated. This article is not about the Syrian Civil War, it is about the multinational (in coordination with the USA) efforts against ISIS. Syria Govt and other local players can't intervene in their own country, that is non-sense. And the intervention against ISIS is across Iraq and Syria both. Iraqi Army and Kurds are ground troop partners, not Syrian Army.Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note - the RfC was opened because there were 3 editors who had posted "Support" and 3 editors who had posted "Oppose" in the parallel discussion. "50/50" ≠ "strong consensus." I recommend you attempt to police these kind of exaggerations; they may be looked upon as obfuscations and campaigning by editors coming here from the RfC bot. I will ask you once to voluntarily place a strike-through in your comment from the words "and" through the word "against." Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was strong consensus about what the article was about for some weeks - until DocumentError tried to change the scope tonight. Not like the Syrian Army just started fighting here, they were left out by every editor who came around because they are not part of the scope of the article. DocumentError tagged the people who you expect will support his position in the orig discussion, and it is appropriate to name the editors who already commented so they can comment again on this Rfc Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I realize you're (relatively) new here, but we don't do WP:PA in RfCs. Wikipedia is not an American talk radio show. If you would like to delete the above comment I'm fine if you delete this one as well. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution and goodwill - and to dispel the WP:CONSPIRACY you've raised - I am deleting the GF notificaiton I posted in the parallel thread. DocumentError (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to DocumentError: I am NOT new to WP or other wiki projects, so don't belittle me. I was not doing a PA, I was pointing to the logic you used for your edits. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The present title is "2014 military intervention against ISIS". The Syrians (and the Iranians, and the Russians) are militarily intervening against ISIS. As long as that title stays there is no reason that their efforts would be excluded. In the context of the broader anti-ISIS conflict, the press includes them. Juno (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The intermittent conflict between the Syrian Arab Republic, ISIS, and the other rebels is covered in the Syrian Civil War article and is supported by WP:RS, while the Syrian Arab Republic's involvement in the recent intervention in Syria is not supported by WP:RS. (I can look up specific instances if needed, but there is no reliable sources discussing the Syrian Arab Republic fighting ISIS in news articles discussing the recent US-Coalition airstrikes as far as I have seen.) Changing the scope of the article to fit the title is WP:OR in regards to what is part of the recent conflict. If the title needs greater specificity that is an independent issue that DocumentError or anyone else can start a discussion on on this talk page. However, I believe the current title is satisfactory as it only matters that other reliable sources have described the U.S. and coalition's recent attacks as a military intervention against ISIS despite ISIS being in conflict with other parties as well. Hello32020 (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Syria is covered as a party to this conflict all the time: [11], [12], [13], and [14]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (you may engage in more elaborate discussion here, if desired)

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) 06:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not get into a comparative political discussion here. Let's keep this focused on the RfC. DocumentError (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Syria can't intervene in their own country, that is non-sense" [sic] - If that's the case, then we need to remove all the Syrian rebel forces from the infobox. They, too, can't "intervene" in their own country. We will also need to remove all the Iraqi forces. DocumentError (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how I currently see things. There are three conflicts that are related:

::Conflict #1: (what this article needs to be about) There is a (yet officially unnamed) "big coalition" consisting of US+Canada+Aust+UK+French+Bahrain+Jordon+UAE+Qatar+KSA+Neth+(ground partners)+Kurds(various versions)+Iraqi Army+whoever the outside countries decide to arm in Syria that are militarily attacking ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The big coalition is supported by a bunch more countries supplying arms and humanitarian aid. It is all these big coalition players vs ISIS. Conflict #1 has the Iraqi insurgency and the Syrian Civil War as a backdrop/partial cause.

Conflict #2 Syrian Civil War (3+years running), with a ridiculous number of players. Countries like Russia and Iran with Assad's Syrian army and entities like Al Qaeda are outside the big coalition (even enemies of it). These players ARE IN or impacting the Syrian Civil War and may oppose ISIS too, but within the context of the Syrian Civil War only. Conflict #1 article should only mention these outside players as they impact Conflict #1.
Conflict #3 Iraqi Insurgency which has pretty much been swallowed by Conflict #1 recently. Even the Kurd vs Central Govt thing is on hold now.
The whole thing is a big mess and ever changing, but this is how I think history will see it based on what we know today.Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth noting that the Syrians have intervened in Iraq as well. As have the Iranians, and almost certainly, the Russians. Syria's actions have not been limited to the territory of Syria. Juno (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point User:Juno, do you think that the Syria cross border activity is properly covered in the spillover articles? The Iranians are players in the Syrian Civil War and Iraq insurggency too. Both are/were proxy wars. Maybe just call this WWIII??? Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The temptation to just name this Second Iraq War and include everything is immense (and if I were a betting man, I'd wager thats where we'll be in 3 months) but for now I think that the reader is best served by this particular article oriented around the actions of the American-led coalition inside Iraq, which would exclude Syria/Iran/Russia/etc. But we would need an appropriate title before enforcing such limitations. Juno (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from how patently ridiculous that is on its face, there are no RS that are referring to this as "World War III." So, no, let's not "maybe just call this WWIII." DocumentError (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just name it Mega-conflict explosion 1: Shock and awe plus beheadings. SantiLak (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a bit of sarcasm in case someone doesn't get that. SantiLak (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As is WWIII a little joke, we had that already and called it the Cold War. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got to love the sarcasm. Good one.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think Military Intervention implies those coming from abroad to intervene in the conflict. The Syrian forces are already involved in the conflict itself, so its not like they are 'intervening'. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Khorasan", Nusra

This coalition is not only targeting IS, but also the Nusra Front. This means that both the title and the article needs changes. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/24/world/meast/isis-al-nusra-khorasan-difference/ http://www.thedailystar.net/doubts-cast-over-us-strike-on-khorasan-43296 FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think that the article should close with "in Iraq" rather than "against ISIS". Juno (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the US targeted Al Qaeda affiliates (nothing new) in Syria (new location). The US was very clear that the Arab partners were not involved in that strike. This article is about attacking ISIS and the other strikes are at best a passing statement for context here. ISIS and Al Qaeda are opposed to each other, not on the same side. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only about IS specifically because no one knew anyone else had been targeted until now. And no, ISIS and al Qaeda are not opposed to each other at all, Zawahiri has advised IS not to attack other Jihadi groups, but that's about it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK intervention

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The UK did 2 reconecaence flights this morning according to the BBC. 90.244.94.220 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This isn't the place to discuss politics. DocumentError (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK90.244.94.220 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has contributed more than two Tornado GR4's. There are six stationed in Cyprus in total.[2] 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.[3] There's also several C-130 Hercules taking part in aid drops. TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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." [4] "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.

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" [5] 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 ..." [6] 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)[reply]

France and the USA on Sept 25th

The USA and France launched a raid on northern Iraq on the 25th. [7] 90.244.94.220 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of Article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which section is this taking place in because I would love to participate. -SantiLak (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You already did - "RfC - Scope of Article" ... DocumentError (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article for intervention in Iraq?

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 [15]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Putting Britain above Australia

I'm not sure why people keep putting Britain above Australia. To my knowledge Britain is providing about 6 warplanes, reconnaissance, cargo support and a SAS squad, a Royal Navy destroyer that is protecting the US carrier group and a nuclear submarine in the region. Compared to Australia's 600 troops, one SASR contingent, 8 Warplanes, and reconnaissance and cargo support.--Empire of War (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Empire of War: I have reinserted the UK and I believe that they should not be removed. I have placed them below France and Australia. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone keeps placing them above France and Australia??--Empire of War (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. Well remember all Syrian civil war related articles are under sanctions and revert rules are strictly WP:1RR only so if its something small just let it be. If the orders get moved then a discussion here will be implemented for consensus with that issue, nobody has changed it yet. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Empire of War - the UK should be below Australia. The page is now protected so it ain't moving for awhile, so that's settled. When we resume editing I would like to suggest Iran and Hezbollah be moved above the United States. DocumentError (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the part "Strength" of the table, you have not put France below Australia, you have just erased it ! Before, there was written 6 Rafale aircrafts + cargo aircrafts (provinding weapons and humanitarian aids). Can't you put it back please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.21.1 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete France from the "strength" infobox, can you send me a link of troop numbers and aircraft they are sending and I'll put it back in, thanks--Empire of War (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have an article from French Magazine Le Point.

http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/etat-islamique-la-france-a-mene-ses-premieres-frappes-en-irak-19-09-2014-1864679_24.php If you read the fourth chapter, they explain it. "Depuis le début de la semaine, les appareils français basés à Al-Dhafra, aux Émirats arabes unis (EAU), avaient conduit en moyenne une mission de reconnaissance par jour au-dessus de l'Irak pour identifier les cibles potentielles : dépôts logistiques, véhicules ou camps d'entraînement. Six Rafale, plusieurs avions de transport ou de ravitaillement et environ sept cent cinquante militaires français sont habituellement stationnés sur cette base, qui constitue la tête de pont du dispositif militaire français dans la région." (Since the beginning of the week, French aircrafts based in Al-Dhafra, UAE, were leading reconnaissance missions above Iraq to identify potential targets: logistical depots, vehicules or training camps. Six Rafales, several transport or refueling planes and around 750 French troops are usually stationned in this base, which constitutes the spearhead of the French presence in the region). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.21.1 (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

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

No, there was a clear and present issue that required immediate and decisive action. DocumentError (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
this page should not be locked. It is an important article about a current event. The lock was at the request of DocumentError [16] for other than the stated reason in the lock request according to DocumentError.[[17]]. In other words the lock was initiated to further an editing agenda. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-British users?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.[11]

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)[reply]

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

International responses section

Hello! I am the one who created the "International responses" section and just now noticed the block on editing. I was wondering if the countries could be put back in order and if info about Venezuela could be added.

The translated article titled "Maduro does not want to attack ISIS terrorists" states the following:

"Days before his meeting with the Iranian envoy, 11 SEP 14, Maduro rejected air operations planned by the USA and other countries against the terrorist organization Islamic State (IS, ISIS or Daesh). Dissemination of videos in which militants of Daesh murder Western journalists and citizens of Syria and Iraq, especially Christians and Kurds, has generated a wave of rejection worldwide. Important actors in the international community (Arab League, Vatican, NATO members) have demanded military action against the terrorist group. In contrast, the Government of Venezuela is giving priority to its relations with Iran, Syria and Russia in rejecting actions against Daesh. According to Maduro, the bombing of the Daesh would be an "aggression" against Syria."

If you would like to check the translation yourself, try using Google Chrome or Google Translate.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose With appreciation for ZiaLater's suggestion, Diario Las Américas is an anti-Castro/anti-Chavista Miami-based advocacy outlet that fails RS. However, I would change my opinion to Support if he has an alternate source. Support DocumentError (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that it wasn't reliable so I apologize.
Try CNN Espanol:
"The president said that while his government condemns terrorism, the international community should focus on combating Ebola "instead of bombing villages in Gaza, Iraq and Syria." "We Western journalists murder hurts, but it hurts like dead from other regions?" He asked."Instead of being bombarded, we must make a covenant of peace against terrorism," he said, explaining that the UN "must redundarse to find total peace."
Hopefully this is more acceptable DocumentError!--ZiaLater (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that seems fine DocumentError (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help DocumentError. Hopefully it'll be up soon. Maybe we could put the countries in alphabetical order as well?--ZiaLater (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Under international reactions, could an admin please consider adding the following text:

  •  Israel – The Israeli government provided satellite imagery and intelligence about Western volunteers fighting for Islamic State to support the US-led campaign, with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon stating "In order to stop and overcome the Islamic State, we have learnt since 9/11 that there must be cooperation between intelligence agencies from across the free world."[12][13]

Thanks in advance for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Opposition to ISIS does not necessarily portend support for the intervention. Ecuador opposes the intervention but no one is claiming Ecuador is an ally of ISIS. We can't assume that Israel supports the intervention on the basis of it providing intelligence about western volunteers. DocumentError (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-ish Israel gave the western coalition intelligence that they may have used in their strikes. I don't think it should be included in the international reactions but somewhere in the infobox might work. SantiLak (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"may have been used" may work on Maybepedia DocumentError (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They provided them with intelligence and that is important enough to warrant a mention in the infobox as providing military aid. I don't have access to the CENTCOM computers so I unfortunately I can't say whether their intelligence led to strikes but they did provide intelligence and that is military support. SantiLak (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the source, the intel appears to be of a law enforcement, versus military, nature. DocumentError (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel has provided satellite imagery and other intelligence in support of the U.S.-led aerial campaign against Islamic State in Iraq." Sounds like military intelligence. Satellite imagery isn't usually used in a law enforcement capacity in a war zone. SantiLak (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel's Defense Ministry neither confirmed nor denied involvement in any international efforts against the militant group." - We need more than one anonymous source to add a nation to the "International Response" section, especially when the nation's government refuses to commit either way. You can't proxy a response through an anonymous source. DocumentError (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for them to be added to the international response but instead to the infobox section for countries providing aid. Also i'm pretty sure Reuters is not suddenly an unreliable source. SantiLak (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters itself is RS, however, the article reports two possibilities: (a) Israel has no position [Foreign Ministry], (b) Israel is providing aid [unnamed person from third party country]. The information is not definitive enough to add Israel. DocumentError (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Turkey has been accidently bombed by ISIS, and is going to vote as to whether or not to invade. Shouldn't here be a section about it? Also who did the edit block?Ericl (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.90.244.94.220 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The community was forced to terminate editing due to persistent, uncooperative edits by unregistered IP editors. DocumentError (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do us registered IP editors make cooperative edits? There are lesser sanctions that have been imposed on many many articles in the past, why not this one?Ericl (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of full disclosure "the community" is actually DocumentError initiating the request and according to him for another reason. Thus the lock appears to be initiated under false pretenses. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ardent edit request

  •  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.[14] There are 6 Tornado GR4 stationed in Cyprus in total so who has put two.[15] 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. And four Chinooks. All such contributions should be added or Wikipedia is not fulfilling it's role as an accurate source of information. [16]
  • 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)

Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.[17]

  •  Israel – The Israeli government provided satellite imagery and intelligence about Western volunteers fighting for Islamic State to support the US-led campaign.[18][19]
  •  Australia – 6 F/A-18F Super Hornets a E-7A Wedgetail and a KC-30A were sent in on Sept 28th [20]
  •  USA - Cruise missiles hit Akl Raqqar in Sirya. A refinery, the GPO, power station and army recruit center were hit on September 23rd [21] American drones select new traget data on August 28th [22] [23][24]
  •  Turkey – A mortar shells hit near the Turkey/Sirya border crossing of Mursitpinar, close to a group of journalists and Turkish security forces, and another shell landed near a refugee camp, about one kilometer inside Turkey on Sept 29th. [25]
90.244.94.220 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Venezuela – The Venezuela leader calls ISIS a Western 'Frankenstein' . Venezuela’s leftist President Nicolas Maduro on Sept 25 accused the west of creating ISIS ans a avaunt provocateur to justify the invasion of the Middle East. He pledged loyalty to President Assad's regime [26]

90.244.94.220 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  South Africa – RSA Muslims condemn ISIS. [27]
  •  Czech Republic – The Czech Republic sent (with the help of Royal Canadian Air Force) ammunition to the Kurds. The supply consisted of 10 million rounds for AK-47, 8 million rounds for machinegun, 5,000 warheads for RPG and 5,000 hand grenades.[28]


For Israel, please see previous discussion.
Venezuela's link to source just leads to Google so I added the presumed sources:
  •  Venezuela – At the 69th General Assembly of the United Nations, President Nicolas Maduro stated that "It's President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government which have stopped the terrorists" and continued by saying "Instead of bombing and bombing, we must make an alliance for peace". President Maduro concluded his statement saying, "Only an alliance that respects these nations’ sovereignty and the assistance of their governments, people and armed forces will truly defeat Islamic terrorism as well as all of the terrorist forces that have emerged like a Frankenstein, a monster nursed by the West itself". (Sources: International Business Times, Al Arabiya and others)
As for RSA Muslims in South Africa condemning ISIS, this does not have much to do with military intervention but may be added to another article.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent son of ardent request

  •  United Kingdom- 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.[11] There are 6 Tornado GR4 stationed in Cyprus in total so who has put two.[12] 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. [13]
  • 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
  • 8 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft
  • 1 Type 45 destroyer
  • 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
  • 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants)
  •  Denmark- Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt announced that Denmark would be deploying 250 pilots and staff, three reserve jets on the 26th. [29] 4 combat jets were added later that day. [30]
Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt announced that Denmark would be deploying 250 pilots and staff, three reserve F-16 fighter jets and four F-16 fighter jet combatant planes on the 27th [31]
A now captured Danish-Turkish militant who fought with ISIS in Syria, OA, told Danish newspaper Politiken earlier in September that Denmark was “high up on [ISIS’s] list of targets, believe me.” PET, the Danish security and intelligence service, released a report revealing that 15 of 100 Danes who have traveled to fight as ISIS militants have been killed in Syria.[32]
  •  Australia- Aussie police call for calm after terrorist inspired 'Isis' graffiti attack in the city of Cairns on September 22nd. [33]
  •  EU/ USA- Large numbers staged protests in Europe and the United States on the 26th in solidarity with the mostly Kurdish people of Kobane in Syria, coinciding with the first US airstrikes on the city’s outskirts on Saturday against Islamic State (IS or ISIS) forces. Sit-ins and protests took place on Friday and Saturday in cities in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Britain, Austria and the United States. [34]
  •  Belgium- Belgian participation for one month was authorized by the country's Chamber of Representatives in the afternoon of September 19th, after more than 3½ hours of debate.[35]
The Belgian military contingent should number 120, including eight pilots and an unknown amount of F-16 multirole fighters, to be based in Jordan, Defense Minister Pieter De Crem.[36]
  •  USA- A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in northern Syria, in the morning of September 23, 2014. Reuters[37]

90.244.94.220 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who has put all that wrong info on the article, hey obviously just looked at one source and took it as true. Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 18:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/09/26/121849.htm
  2. ^ http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-26/raf-stand-ready-for-iraq-islmaic-state-airstrikes/
  3. ^ http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Yorkshire-Regiment-soldiers-land-Iraq/story-22761203-detail/story.html
  4. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-air-strikes-david-cameron-announces-additional-tornado-jets-will-be-deployed-to-provide-enhanced-resilience-against-isis-9771245.html
  5. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29469520
  6. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2778739/Cameron-announces-two-Tornado-bombers-join-campaign-against-Islamic-State-makes-surprise-visit-Cyprus-base-aircraft-operating.html
  7. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSKCN0HJ1H120140925
  8. ^ http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140926/NEWS08/309260049/UK-aircraft-prepared-attack-militants-Iraq
  9. ^ http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-26/raf-stand-ready-for-iraq-islmaic-state-airstrikes/
  10. ^ http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Yorkshire-Regiment-soldiers-land-Iraq/story-22761203-detail/story.html
  11. ^ http://rt.com/news/166920-isis-iraq-offensive-report/
  12. ^ Williams, Dan (2014-09-08). "Israel provides intelligence on Islamic State: Western diplomat". Reuters/Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2014-09-29.
  13. ^ "Israel urges global spies to pool resources on IS". AFP/Yahoo! News. 2014-09-09. Retrieved 2014-09-29.
  14. ^ http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140926/NEWS08/309260049/UK-aircraft-prepared-attack-militants-Iraq
  15. ^ http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-26/raf-stand-ready-for-iraq-islmaic-state-airstrikes/
  16. ^ http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Yorkshire-Regiment-soldiers-land-Iraq/story-22761203-detail/story.html
  17. ^ http://rt.com/news/166920-isis-iraq-offensive-report/
  18. ^ Williams, Dan (2014-09-08). "Israel provides intelligence on Islamic State: Western diplomat". Reuters/Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2014-09-29.
  19. ^ "Israel urges global spies to pool resources on IS". AFP/Yahoo! News. 2014-09-09. Retrieved 2014-09-29.
  20. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2772988/Airstrikes-Australian-jets-Islamic-State-jihadists-likely-come-soon-RAAF-jets-undertaking-training-exercises-Middle-East.html
  21. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/23/world/meast/syria-isis-airstrikes-explainer/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
  22. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/how-beat-islamic-state-267273
  23. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/28/us-airstrikes-syria-turkey-islamic-state/16380067/
  24. ^ http://time.com/3442007/us-led-airstrikes-hit-syria-oil-refinery-by-turkey/
  25. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-29/islamic-state-shells-hit-turkey-amid-syria-border-fight.html
  26. ^ https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8
  27. ^ http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/IUC-joins-SA-Muslim-condemnation-of-ISIS-20140910
  28. ^ http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/domov/zpravy/z-pardubic-dnes-odletela-do-iraku-druha-cast-munice-pro-kurdy/1125372}
  29. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/denmark-isis_n_5887230.html
  30. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/26/denmark-joins-coalition-against-islamic-state-group/
  31. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/britain-belgium-and-denmark-join-global-coalition-against-islamic-state-273570
  32. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/britain-belgium-and-denmark-join-global-coalition-against-islamic-state-273570
  33. ^ http://www.cairnspost.com.au/lifestyle/police-call-for-calm-after-terrorinspired-isis-graffiti-attack-in-cairns/story-fnjpuwet-1227067361292
  34. ^ http://rudaw.net/english/world/280920143
  35. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/denmark-isis_n_5887230.html
  36. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/denmark-isis_n_5887230.html
  37. ^ http://www.newsweek.com/britain-belgium-and-denmark-join-global-coalition-against-islamic-state-273570

RfC - Merger of "2014 American-led intervention in Iraq" to "2014 military intervention against ISIS"

Duplicate of ongoing discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq. Please comment there.

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.

2014 American-led intervention in Iraq appears to exist to circumvent the edit block currently on 2014 military intervention against ISIS and largely duplicates material there. I propose it be merged with the aforementioned article.

Opinion in Brief

  • Strong Support The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS contains all substantive information contained here, this article appears to exist solely to either (a) create a USA vanity article, (b) an article in which USA forces don't have to be presented in the same column as Iran and Hezbollah as with the previous article, or, (c) circumvent an edit block. A discussion that occurred at that page had wide consensus to create an Iraq-specific conflict article but not a US Iraq-specific conflict article (see: [18]) DocumentError (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose We need two separate articles for each intervention and one for the summary. This article really was not created in order bypass the full protection and I can't really see how it is an attempt to. The similarity in the infobox is valid considering the information shared between the two articles. Also I don't know why an article on the intervention is a USA vanity article because that term has been used a lot and just because an article focuses on the US and coalition intervention, that doesn't mean it is vanity, it is just reporting how the US and coalition partners are a very large part of the intervention. Their are other partners besides the US including Shia militias, Iraq, the kurds, coalition partners, and if others are needed then add others such as Iran instead of tagging the page with an unnecessary CSD template. SantiLak (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Who are the ground partners in the American-led intervention

  • Iraqi Kurds - for sure partnered with Americans
  • PKK (Turkey Kurds)- are helping the Iraqi kurds, but not allied with the Americans - should exclude?
  • Iranian Kurds - helping Iraqi Kurds, but not partnered with US
  • Iraqi Army - for sure partnered with Americans
  • Shiite Militias - helping the Iraqi army, but not allied with Americans as far as I can tell?
  • Iranians, Russians, Syrian Govt - not partnered with Americans for sure, and we agreed to exclude them

Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Syrian gov should be included as their participation is part of Syrian civil war and not the intervention. Iran and Russia on the other hand yes but not Syria. SantiLak (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry - wrong talk page - too many similar articles open. Disregard my comments that belonged in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Iraq Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's parliament OKs military force

According to CNN, "The Turkish parliament on Thursday voted 298-98 to authorize military force against ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq". Also, they had already deployed special forces into Syria in March to defend the tomb of Suleyman Shah. (Source: CNN)--ZiaLater (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's according to everybody. When exactly they'll do anything else about the crisis is unknown.Ericl (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait to see their action and then we could maybe have an admin add them here. SantiLak (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, just adding this source as an introduction to something we can add if they do begin using military force.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK military involvement

It just be noted that the UK have 8 tornado GR4 fighter bombers based in Cyrus for action in Iraq not 2 as per: http://news.sky.com/story/1346426/pm-at-cyprus-base-as-more-jets-join-is-fight

The article is locked until this Sunday. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth is running this page?

Anyone who is moderating/running this page please pay attention to this post. I have made numerous attempts to demand a modification to the British contribution to the operation as I believe it to be disgustingly inaccurate (subject to bias) and embarrassing to Wikipedia. I am writing this IN LIGHT OF THE FACT that Britain is deploying two additional two fighter aircraft to RAF Akrotiri -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11137489/RAF-Tornado-squadron-saved-from-the-scrap-heap-to-bomb-Isil.html .

This brings Britain's contribution of fighter Jets to 8, up from six. Yet funnily enough, apparently Britain is only contributing two aircraft to the operation according to Wikipedia. Is Australia flying all of it's aircraft at once? Because that is what it takes to qualify to have eight jets mentioned on Wikipedia, I find it unlikely.

I reiterate my demand for the following modification to be made, I speak for other users also with this post. United Kingdom:

Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.[1]

Please do this website justice. As even some bright spark has edited this page's sister page stating the correct British contribution. The same should be done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this stuff really does need adding. To say the UK doesn't have 8 Tornado's involved just because they haven't all been used for airstrikes (yet) is just a desperate argument to make. Why would the aircraft be there if they weren't to be used in operations? I find the argument pretty biased too, considering the full contributions of Australia, Denmark and Belgium are listed, yet NONE of those countries have even contributed a single airstrike. The UK has made FOUR.
In addition to the British contributions listed above, I'd also request:

UK and it's leaders should be placed under the US, ahead of Australia and other nations who it is behind.

^No other nation, excluding the United States, is contributing such a varied and effective military contribution to the operation. Perhaps most significantly, despite all the earlier rhetoric about Australia and others contributing more jets than Britain (Now not the case) -- Australia nor Denmark nor Belgium have conducted ANY airsrikes and NONE of Australia's troops have engaged in any kind of combat. Britain has conducted airstrikes with the US. France has not conducted airstrikes for well over a week. I could say those troops are not doing anything and are thus not a military contribution. I expect to see this amended or come Sunday when this page is unlocked, no unjust anti-British edits in favour of Australia. Keep your politics/national preference out of it users and stick to the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Alan Henning.

With great sorrow a second British hostage has been murdered by ISIS, Alan Henning. I request this to be modified. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[3] and UK Special Forces are also active elsewhere in the country, coordinating airstrikes and rescues[4]. 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)[reply]

Edit request

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First US military casualty

The infobox should probably be updated with regard to casualties: "Marine is first U.S. death in operations against Islamic State [...] Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, confirmed on Friday that the Marine's unit had been supporting current operations in the Gulf, including the current battle against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria." (Reuters) --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 October 2014

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Alan Henning

The list of deaths needs amending to include two British aid workers killed, not one, due to the recent execution of Alan Henning.[5]


Thank you for reading. - TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Belligerent

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


Making the case for Australia and Britain

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.

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:

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:

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)[reply]

Final Disposition on the UK - Australia Dispute

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Alphabetical after USA.90.244.94.220 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • So basically this seems to be the argument for putting the USA first in the list - [[19]] DocumentError (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Then what about the infobox leaders list? That surely can't be alphabetical?--Empire of War (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://rt.com/news/166920-isis-iraq-offensive-report/
  2. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11111167/British-hostage-Alan-Henning-beheaded-by-Islamic-State-killers.html
  3. ^ http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Yorkshire-Regiment-soldiers-land-Iraq/story-22761203-detail/story.html
  4. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11131948/British-special-forces-join-fighters-on-Isil-front-line.html
  5. ^ "Alan Henning 'killed by Islamic State'". BBC News. 10-04-2014. Retrieved 10-04-2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_against_the_Islamic_State&oldid=628318569"