Talk:US intervention in the Syrian civil war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Part of the Syrian civil war

Should we include the U. S. intervention as part of the Syrian civil war? It sure will have an impact on the conduct of war. The ISIS will probably be weakened, which will affect the strength of both the Assad's government and the rebels. Although the USA isn't on any side, they are involved in the civil war. --Anulmanul (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me we should keep it the same way that it is in the American intervention in Iraq page. That has worked out fine so far. SantiLak (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Public Domain video of F-22 command and control strike

The Aviationist (good website) puts out articles and videos on civilian and military aviation. The article Weapons system video of first F-22 Raptor air strike on ISIS in Syria links to unclassified video that could be downloaded, converted to webm and uploaded to Commons. The [Centcom YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/centcom/videos] also has video of two other recent bombing operations in Syria.~Technophant (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to convert a video earlier to webm but it wouldn't work. Does anyone have any suggestions on conversion sites or software. SantiLak (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

SantiLak Newer Youtube videos should already be in Webm format. I found a useful (but annoying) video that shows how [1].~Technophant (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, I added a video in webm format. I ended up using a free video converter because the videos method didn't work but its all good now. SantiLak (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

SantiLak I found that I could easily download webm's using JDownloader 2 beta. I uploaded a higher resolution, smaller version of the file mentioned above. I also uploaded File:Sept. 23 ISIL Vehicle Staging Ground.webm and File:Sept. 23 ISIL Storage Facility.webm.~Technophant (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Core-Coalition??????

Can someone tell me the meaning of Core-Coalition? Who chose the name Core-Coalition? Why is it not called an international coalition? 121.216.120.115 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that "Core-Coalition" is unnecessarily clunky and have moved away from it. If the President keeps using the phrase/it gets picked up by the media we should revisit. Juno (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming

It is clear it's not just American, but also an Arab intervention. Should we rename the article to "2014 Foreign intervention in Syria" or similar? --Anulmanul (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be something like "2014 Foreign intervention in Syria" or maybe "2014 military intervention in Syria". SantiLak (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "2014 military intervention in Syria against ISIS"? --Anulmanul (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems apt but the name seems a little too similar to "2014 military intervention against ISIS" and we haven't decided whether to merge yet so I don't know. SantiLak (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a bunch of different state players in the Syrian Civil War, so the proposed titles that do not include ISIS in the title don't work very well. I am favoring a merge more and more. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about "2014 coalition intervention in Syria", that works for me. SantiLak (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

or "2014 coalition intervention against ISIS"? Syria now saying they were advised in advance. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Naming it that would be too confusing unless we decide to merge the article. SantiLak (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. what about "2014 coalition intervention against ISIS in Syria"? Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems a little long and also a little redundant because in the article it makes it clear that it is against ISIS. "2014 coalition intervention in Syria" just seems simpler. SantiLak (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why the '2014'? This will problably go on for a long time. Why not just 'Foreign military intervention in Syria' or just 'Military intervention in Syria' or 'Military intervention in Syria (2014-present)'? Coltsfan (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "Foreign military intervention in Syria (2014-present)" would be a good title. SantiLak (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is ample media reference to Barack Obama's phrase "Core Coalition" Google Search I am going to be bold and change it. MPS (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the term is referenced in only two stories (5 September and 9 September). And it seems already most editors have no idea what the term core coalition should mean. So I will be bold and change it to "Foreign military intervention in Syria (2014-present)", as Coltsfan and SantiLak proposed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all foreigners

While I generally think it is a good idea to move the word "American" in the title to something more inclusive, we must be mindful to not make it too inclusive. Iran, Russia and reportedly a few other foreign nations intervened pretty seriously in Syria in 2014, yet are not the foreigners that we are talking about. Maybe "Coalition" or "American-led"? Juno (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think coalition intervention would work just fine. SantiLak (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Russians have not militarily intervened and the Iranians have only sent military advisors, no direct and overt intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Russians and the Iranians are decidedly intervening in the war. We have to make it clear which intervening partners this article focuses on. Juno (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Rename to "International Military Operations in Syria, 2014"

If we named it "International Military Operations in Syria, 2014" that would cover both foreign and domestic fighters, as well as neutralizing the problematic "intervention" name. DocumentError (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But "International" would also cover the Russians, the Iranians who all knows who else. Parties which are (reasonably) not the focus of this article. Juno (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Involvement of Israel

According to Israel here and here, they are involved in both supplying intel on ISIS in Syria and are being briefed by the US on what is happening in Syria as well. Does this deserve to be mentioned in this article? I don't expect the United States to publically admit this due to the coalition involving Arab states, but it's not the first time Israel and the Arab states have secretly cooperated together. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably not enough to add to the infobox, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Once the merge discussion concludes, it'll be easier to say where. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrian involvement

I noticed that different users had added Syria to not only the US side but also the Militant side in the infobox and even though they separated them, in both cases the Syrian regime forces aren't involved. The US made it clear that they only informed the Syrian UN ambassador of their intention to launch airstrikes but did not coordinate with them in any way. They also aren't part of the coalition as made clear by the US government on many occasions. The Syrian regime is also not being targeted by US forces as made clear in reports of promises they made to Iran and they made clear that they would only act in self defense if for example the Syrian air force attempted to attack US or coalition aircraft. SantiLak (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not right to add Syria as a belligerent on the anti ISIS side as they are not foreign. There is a Civil War (involving by definition, locals) with interference by various outside players, and then there is a new war against ISIS that just happens to involve activity in Syria where they control territory. I don't like the current title that says "US" as this is so much more than the US.Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that they should probably be noted as a 3rd force, as they seem to be in most of the articles that I read. Juno (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they should and also whether they should be included in the intervention articles is an issue that is being discussed after they were added to an article.SantiLak (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrians need to stay out of the infoboxes for the intervention articles. Looks like they are just going to (wisely) stand back and watch the rest of the world pound ISIS. Don't seem interested in giving an excuse to the Americans to shot at Syrian Govt forces too.Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd oppose including Syria. They are not involved in any sense, except politically. --Anulmanul (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Start date

The American military has been active inside of Syria since July, shouldn't the state date be then? Juno (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No; the emphasis of the article is on the operations started recently by the US and its Arab allies. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the multinational intervention as David says. Besides, we only have concrete evidence of one failed rescue operation in early July. Nothing since than. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1 - there were Jordanians involved in that raid as well.

2 - does not rolling a bunch of armed men over the boarders of another state count as military intervention? Juno (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Okay, clearly there's some WP:MOS issues that need to be addressed with the title. The obvious one that comes to mind is that "US" is 1) not the preferred abbreviation for the United States, as per WP:NOTUSA, American English renders it "U.S.", and the article is written in American English; 2) again per WP:NOTUSA, the abbreviation should not be used on first reference, and abbreviations should generally be avoided in titles anyway per WP:TITLEFORMAT. But there is also the matter of the hyphen being used in "US-Coalition" where it should properly be an en dash, per WP:ENDASH. Ah, if only the Pentagon and White House would start calling this intervention by its operational name, like they did with Operation Desert Fox... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I like "US" for the brevity, but would not be opposed to "U.S.". not totally sure what to do about the dash. Juno (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can people stop changing the name of the article until some kind of a consensus is achieved? Let's discuss it first and then make the changes, how about that? Coltsfan (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that, individual users shouldn't take it upon themselves to decide what the article name should be, no matter whether they are good intentions. We need to discuss it. SantiLak (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start a few discussions on some of the recent moves and on one that I would like to make in the future. Juno (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Elminiate the "2014" from the title?

The US does not appear to have ever intervened in Syria in scale before. I think that we could do away with the "2014" without introducing any confusion to the reader. Juno (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Juno (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Move to "Talk:2014 multinational military intervention in Syria"?

One editor has suggested this title and I wanted to get ball rolling on discussing it.

• Opposed First, this is not an article on the multinational efforts in Syria, just of the American-led efforts. This article deliberately excludes the Iranians, Russians and everyone else fighting there. Second, I believe the word "military" to be redundant. Juno (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed This is an article on the US-Coalition intervention and is specifically aimed at describing it. If we call it a multinational intervention then it opens it up to people adding Syria and every other group fighting there even though they aren't actually intervening because they are just continuing the civil war. SantiLak (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support: I have raised policy-based objections to the use of the abbreviation "US" and the ungrammatical hyphen in the title. The proposed title eliminates those issues. "US-Coalition" is a term I have only seen on Wikipedia, which is a huge red flag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge or split?

This article is closely tied with the 2014 military intervention against ISIS which already has its own independent section on Iraq with information about it. I believe this article should be merged with the section on Syria. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea but we should make clear which allies are involved in bombings in which countries because the arab countries are only involved in syria so far and France is only involved in Iraq. Let's see what a couple of others have to say as well before acting. A little extra input can't hurt. SantiLak (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@SantiLak someone very helpfully edited the infobox on the other article to diff Iraq vs Syria geographic involvement. Good point, and good job for whoever came up with that solution. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac I noticed that, they improved my earlier formatting and split it in to sections which I hadn't thought of. SantiLak (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to create a new section in the talk page, then I saw your comment. I'm going to suggest keeping this article and letting the other article be focused on Iraq. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand. This is pretty recent, and only a few hours ago there was a debate as to what the name would be for the 2014 military intervention against ISIS article until the airstikes took place and then it was renamed. As more countries in the coalition start playing more of a significant role it will be evident whether this article stays separate or not. If most arab countries stay focused in Syria then this article should indeed stay. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, let's see how it play's out in the next day or so until we can get more information. SantiLak (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we just duplicate the same info across both articles for now? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It is really already duplicated but I just had added little bits of other information on this one. There really is so little information so far that ya we should but I think we should still keep the article. SantiLak (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel somewhat comfortable leaving this article. Now that the 2014 military intervention against ISIS has a very broad scope, this article (and others) will need to be split off it as it grows. ~Technophant (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully support the merge now that the 2014 American intervention in Iraq has been freshly renamed [2014 military intervention against ISIS]. While there the Iraq conflict and Syria Civil War are part of the backdrop, this is all about fighting ISIL regardless of borders. Canada, France, Australia, and now Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan all directly involved, plus all the other countries shipping aid. We need to view this war as everyone vs ISIL not an American intervention in named countries.Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but it seems to me that we should let the situation play out and see if the strikes on Syria become something larger because we don't know now whether they will turn out to be a far larger military campaign in Syria than there was in Iraq. I think we should hold off on deciding whether to merge until we see what happens. SantiLak (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I support the merge, but let's wait for few days. The intervention has just begun, and we do not know what will turn out in the end... --Anulmanul (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All the talking head military experts are saying this is the beginning of months of strikes - not a one night deal. Ground troops are another issue... Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's just more reason for us to hold off on merging. SantiLak (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge. The "two" wars have been merged for quite a while now, and the coalition has bombed both Al Nusra and Khorasan, which makes it more than just against ISIS. But that's about the title, the two articles should merge because it's the same damn thingEricl (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge! Better to understand the situation if everything is a single article. Coltsfan (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Keep the overall article on the US intervention against ISIS which will summarize the story, but keep the individual separate sub-article on the bombing of ISIS in Syria for a longer and more detailed story. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I believe that the airstrikes are interconnected with Iraq aswell, I support the merge. The 2014 military intervention against ISIS should have as much information including both countries. ISIS operates in both Iraq and Syria, the airstrikes are taking place in both countries against one common enemy. --Acetotyce (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I'm with Ekograf on this, the bombing in Syria should stay a separate article and the Intervention against ISIS page should summarize it. Also from what it seems, the operations in Syria may be on a much wider scale than the operations in Iraq and because of that for the time being we should keep them separate. SantiLak (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The arguments brought up are valid, and I agree. I'm reconsidering my vote to oppose a separate article is fine by me. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that, at this time, the articles should remain split. Two different objectives, two different sets of enemies, two different sets of allies. Juno (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But you don't have one article talking about one part of the war and one talking about the other part. You got one talking about both actions and the other talking about half of it. Makes no sense. Coltsfan (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Iraq article needs to be either more sharply refocused on Iraq. Maybe an overarching article should b written about global anti-ISIS actions, but reviewing the page history on the attempts to write an article about the broader Middle Eastern conflict, my head hurts just thinking about it. Juno (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One article on Iraq, one article on Syria and one over-arching article. Problem solved. EkoGraf (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think thats the right approach. Some editors might try to merge that overarching article in with the Syrian Civil War but I think what you mentioned is correct and I would support such a move. Juno (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here [2] on whether or not to have an article focusing on Iraq's role in the conflict against ISIS. I'd appreciate your comments. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

ROLL CALL

Oppose this is a unique event that deserves its own article, much like the Battle of Fallujah doesn't need to be merged into Iraq War. Peace MPS (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose air strikes have separate mandat, thats a different topic. Serten (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Two different sets of allies, two different objectives, two different nations. There could be a different overarching article, but there needs to be two different articles on these two different (yet related) wars. Juno (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as we have a certain group of countries fighting in Iraq and some in Syria only. Look at the UK for example, airstrikes in Iraq only but not Syria, whereas Saudi Arabia is striking Syria instead of Iraq. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The countries conducting airstrikes in Iraq & Syria are different. There should be a general article about operations against ISIS, along with specific articles about what's happening in Iraq & Syria. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The interventions are distinct from each other; they were initiated at separate times. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the Article/Need Discussion First

I think that we need to establish that users should not change the name unless there is a discussion about it. It has been changed so many times now that there needs to be a discussion. SantiLak (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Request move protection at WP:RPP, then. Forming a compromise through editing isn't wrong, though. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Forming a compromise through editing isn't wrong? This is almost a EW. Coltsfan (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So requested. Juno (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The "northern Levant" phrase currently in the title is inexact; this article focuses on the intervention in Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

De facto, the territory held by the Islamic State is not in the state of "Syria", so-to-speak. It is in the geographical region of the northern Levant. RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But the article should be limited to the nation-state of Syria. There are a distinct set of actors mobilizing in each case (Syria as opposed to Iraq). This article deals with Syria; this article 2014 military intervention against ISIS deals with the overall conflict. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State-held territory, which is being targeted by the coalition, is no longer in the state of Syria. It is in the "Islamic State" de facto, but given that no one recognises them, we can't say "2014 American intervention in the Islamic State" and maintain neutrality. Hence, we revert to neutral geographical terminology, such as "in the northern Levant". This neutrally describes the territory being targeted by the coalition (Iraq is not Levantine). RGloucester — ☎ 20:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Being targeted by which coalition? The Australians are intervening in Iraq, but not in Syria. The Jordanians are intervening in Syria, but not in Iraq. We are, if nothing else, dealing with two different theaters in a global conflict. Juno (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Even though it isn't under control of the Syrian government, it doesn't mean that it isn't within the recognized borders of Syria. I don't think any country in the world that has recognized a change in Syria's borders. I know that there are some that don't recognize Assad's government as legitimate but the borders are still recognized. The intervention is in Syria. It's as if we were to say the US bombing some imaginary terrorist group in mountains in Switzerland would be a US intervention in the Alps instead of the US intervention in Switzerland. The borders stayed the same even if they aren't controlled by Syria. SantiLak (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Would "2014 US - Arab coalition intervention in Syria" be an acceptable title? This Reuters article [3] mentions the phrase "Arab allies". David O. Johnson (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that might work for now and by that I mean that we don't know if in the future any european countries might join in the Syria coalition. But until that does happen, that is a great title. SantiLak (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the preciseness that this proposal provides, and have hence implemented it as 2014 Americo-Arabian intervention in Syria. RGloucester — ☎ 23:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester Please discuss and vote on these things before implementing them. Juno (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "Arabian" solely refers to Saudi Arabia; the correct word is "Arab". "2014 US - Arab coalition intervention in Syria" sounds like the best solution as this time (in my opinion). Perhaps there should be some more discussion prior to another page move, though. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "Arab" is not appropriate. "Arabian" refers to the Arabian Peninsula. All the states that have intervened are on the Arabian Peninsula. "Saudi Arabia" means the "the Saudi-ruled part of Arabia". It does not claim all of Arabia. "Arab" is imprecise. Morocco has not intervened, nor has Tunisia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jordan is not located on the Arabian Peninsula. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at a map, lately? Please see Arabian Peninsula. RGloucester — ☎ 23:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you insult my intelligence, I suggest you read Arabian_Peninsula#Political_boundaries. Jordan is not typically considered an Arabian country. It is politically and culturally part of the Levant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The modern state is culturally Levantine, there is no doubt about that. I'd say that this is largely due to the influx of Palestinians. Regardless, it is geographically part of the Arabian Peninsula. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's not an Arabian state, so your edit is incorrect. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an Arabian state. It is on the peninsula, and hence, it is "Arabian". RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"US" is an abbreviation and should not be used in the article title, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. (See, for examples: United States Senate election in Arkansas, 2014; United Arab Emirates–United States relations; United States intervention in Chile; etc.) Otherwise, I have no problem with a title like United States and Arab intervention in Syria, or United States–led coalition intervention in Syria, or simply Coalition intervention in Syria. (Not to fall into the WP:CRYSTAL trap, but it appears likely that Turkey and possibly Canada will begin participating in operations within Syria shortly, so emphasizing "Arab" in the title may be a mistake.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1 Please discuss and vote on these things before implementing them. Juno (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly need to remind you of all of the undiscussed moves you have made to this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The present title seems fairly decent for the time being, until this coalition is named or otherwise comes into its own. It is clear that this is an American initiative, and is portrayed as such in reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 23:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, it was indeed America that started this coalition and is the one country that did the most strikes on its own. As I raised concerns on the sister article that this conflict is still ongoing and is prone to changes any second when there was a discussion to rename that, as soon as the airstrikes began in Syria the name changed. Lets keep it the way it is then lets change it when it is evident that the U.S. and more partners play a larger role. If Turkey does a ground invasion just a scenario then it is clear that the U.S. isn't playing the larger role. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove the word "coalition" from the title?

I think that the phrase "American-led" makes the word "coalition" redundant. If you were to read the title "American-led intervention in Syria" you would have all the same information as "American-led coalition intervention in Syria". What do you guys think? Juno (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Juno (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I like that idea, plus there should be an American-led intervention in Iraq to go with the parent article. I really do believe there should be an article about Iraq in specific to go with the Syrian article. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – This is an obvious business. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's pretty logical. I have proposed here [4] that an article be created for the recent American intervention in Iraq. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have started a draft based off the Iraqi portion of the infobox on the parent article. feel free to work on it/move it until we feel its ready. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Support Acetotyce's suggestion, don't care one way or the other about the move req as long as it's grammatical and comports with WP:ARTICLETITLE. I still do think we should follow the formula of United States intervention in Chile, United States occupation of the Dominican Republic, and United States invasion of Panama, however. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The adjectival form is required, just as in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. "United States" in this context is grammatically incorrect, and doesn't make any sense at all. We should follow the template of 2014 American rescue mission in Syria, and also article 2014 American intervention in Iraq, recently renamed due to the participation of other nations. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note similar articles, which all use adjectival forms, not state names: French intervention in Mexico (not "French Second Empire"), Japanese occupation of the Philippines (not "Empire of Japan"). RGloucester — ☎ 03:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"United States" is a common adjectival form: United States Army (compare to French Army), United States Open (compare to French Open), United States Code, etc. In fact, as the examples I gave show, it's generally preferred on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely unacceptable in places where it is not an official and proper title, those being exceptions (such as U.S. Army). Otherwise, it is incorrect in every respect. It is a disgusting abuse of the English language. In common usage amongst English speakers, things from the United States of America are American. If you were to ask Joe Bloggs about this incident, he would not say "United States intervention". He would say either "American intervention". In the same way, I don't say "French Republic intervention in Mali". It makes no sense, it is wrong, it sounds horrid, and it isn't WP:CONCISE or NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not "absolutely unacceptable". It's the convention. If you pay attention, you see phrases like "U.S. forces", "U.S. officials", "U.S. citizens", etc., all the time. But if you have already made up your mind that something must be a certain way and it would destroy Wikipedia for it to be any other way (never mind all of the existing articles I have mentioned and many, many more), then well, I certainly know from experience how little point there is in arguing with you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the "convention", and even if it were the convention, it could be changed if it were bad. Haven't you ever heard of social constructivism? We don't use journalistic shorthand as newspapers do, as we're not a newspaper. The convention is to use adjectival forms, as in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. "United States" is not an adjective. The adjective for things pertaining to America, outside certain proper nouns, is "American". "U.S." is unacceptable journalistic shorthand, unless it is a shortening of those particular proper nouns that have "United States" in them. "United States" outside that context is clunky, un-natural, not concise, and utterly contemptible. RGloucester — ☎ 12:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created moved it to mainspace with the original name, feel free to decide on a name, I am quite busy today and wont have time. I will leave that up to the community. --Acetotyce (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of other matters, there was clear consensus to remove "coalition", so I've done so. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

US/Partners specially targeting al-Nusra Front

Has there been any official statement regarding the US or any other countries involved targeting ANF? Yes they have obviously hit ANF related target and killed members, but was this ever a stated intention, as it was with IS and the "Khorasan group"? Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Khorasan group=> part of al-Nusra Front => part of al-Qaida. According to the Pentagon these strikes were all US ones. Based on some reports, ISIL and al-Nusra might be rejoining forces and for sure there is a big bleed of individual fighters toward ISIL from ANF. Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkish Involvement

I definitely think we should include Turkey in this article now and if they end up undertaking airstrikes but I think there is an important question to address. Whether this article should be the main article for any future turkish military action. I think we have to wait and see what the coordination level is between the US and Turkey because if they are working as closely together as the US and Arab partners then it definitely should be here but if the Turks are acting separately from the US then maybe the main part of it should be in the separate Turkish article. If they do join the coalition then they definitely should be included here and their military actions in Syria should be included in the multi-national airstrikes section. SantiLak (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Great minds think alike - I just added three paragraphs in their own section before I saw your post. I also just found Turkish_Intervention_in_Syria_and_Iraq,_2014-present started a couple days ago and progressing nicely, so I linked it as the main article. Someone will prob try and merge it to who knows where but Turkey has a very unique position and history with the conflict and I expect will not be so Iraq vs Syria involvement sensitive as other players are so I think this article should give a good summary and let the more detailed article grow. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the real question is whether Erdogan takes advantage of parliamentary approval to begin combat operations. Analysts seem split as to whether Ankara actually means to carry out attacks against ISIL, and U.S. officials have said they have no idea what Turkey is going to do. That being said, the fact that Turkey could enter the conflict as a belligerent (potentially bringing the largest and most sophisticated military force yet to enter the fight) at any moment is definitely noteworthy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking in terms of them being a NATO member and wondering if they were to take military actions, would they be in coordination with the US considering that they are the two biggest military powers in NATO and both have significant military ties. SantiLak (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a near-certainty that Turkey would at least be working in collaboration with the United States, even if Erdogan might balk at the idea of being a U.S. lackey (this is all just speculative, of course). The Turkish parliamentary approval came after overt lobbying from the U.S., and Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States, which has expended considerable cost and effort to equip the Turkish military... -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkey will not be playing with Iran-who already expressed outrage at potential Turkish involvement, and they sure would be stupid to put troops on the ground without coordinating with the Americans overhead - I bet US Humvees captured by ISIL look a lot like Humvees sold to Turkey. And you noticed that the resolution was both for military force and open bases to partners. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

NATO top dog said if Turkey attacked NATO is in like flynn. Every day or so there are incidents on and over the border that Turkey could use as an excuse to cross the line and fight ISiL. The "I don't know what turkey is doing" american story sounds like BS, more likely they have a pretty clear plan and are going to spring it on ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep it different, the Turks are on the ground and have the internal bones to pick, while the US stay in air. Serten (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

But the turks might not necessarily act independently from the US. They are NATO partners with important US military assets in turkey. We have to wait and see but the turks might coordinate with the US. It's not like the US vs Iran in Iraq where they are not cooperating. SantiLak (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Free yourself from the idea that Nato partners lead each other (Greeks and Turkish don't ;) otr the USA has leadership over Turkey in a question deemed as being of national importance, say cyprus or the border to the kurdish region. The might coordinate, but the Turkish effort is Turkish first. Serten (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that none of us are parts of the turkish or american military command structure we should wait and see the coordination level. SantiLak (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

My belief is that we should not. It seems that articles about other conflicts do not. What are your thoughts? Juno (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I remember this issue came up on Libyan Civil War (which feels like ye old days now...) when a British serviceman was killed in a car accident in Italy, where he was staged to participate in coalition operations in Libya, and we included that as a casualty. That death certainly was a noncombat accident -- far more so than a military vehicle crashing while involved in military operations, as happened with the V-22 off the Iraqi coast. But to avoid this sort of parsing, I think it's appropriate to include any death of military personnel involved in this intervention as a casualty, whether they are shot down by jihadists, killed in a friendly-fire incident, die in a plane crash, or fall 200 feet into a ravine while out for a jog around their barracks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of plot?

There have been some allegations that the supposed plot by the Khorasan Group was invented or exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Much of this criticism is highly politicized and borders on conspiracy theory. However, a few relatively sane sources have commented on it.

• Timm, Trevor (24 September 2014). "Is Obama misleading the world to war? Depends how you define 'misleading'". The Guardian.
• "Was the Khorasan Group ever an 'imminent threat'?". Firedoglake. 29 September 2014.
• Greenwald, Glenn; Hussain, Murtaza (28 September 2014). "The fake terror threat used to justify bombing Syria". The Intercept.

These refs also quote some government sources indicating that the seriousness of the threat may be much less than initially reported. Perhaps something about this should be incorporated into the article? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing the sources you provided when one of them (The Guardian) is an opinion column, the other is Glenn Greenwald's news site full of accusations towards RS's, and the last is a very opinionated blog. You are very right that the criticism is highly politicized and these sources are politicized as well. SantiLak (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought it might be worth mentioning these claims as a significant minority viewpoint. But beyond that, many highly reliable sources have questioned how well-defined and immediate the plot was has been:

• Harris, Shane; Hudson, John; Drennan, Justine (23 September 2014). "'We're not sure their capabilities match their desire': Is the Khorasan Group as dangerous as the White House is making it out to be?". Foreign Policy. But according to the top U.S. counterterrorism official, as well as Obama himself, there is 'no credible information' that the militants of the Islamic State were planning to attack inside the United States. Although the group could pose a domestic terrorism threat if left unchecked, any plot it tried launching today would be 'limited in scope' and 'nothing like a 9/11-scale attack,' Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in remarks at the Brookings Institution earlier this month.
• Mazzetti, Mark (24 September 2014). "A terror cell that avoided the spotlight". The New York Times. The United States government has yet to confirm whether Mr. Fadhli died in the strike, and American officials have given differing accounts about just how close the group was to mounting an attack, and about what chance any plot had of success. One senior American official on Wednesday described the Khorasan plotting as 'aspirational' and said that there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works.
• Dilanian, Ken (25 September 2014). "US offers more nuanced take on Khorasan threat". Associated Press. James Comey, the FBI director, and Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, each acknowledged that the U.S. did not have precise intelligence about where or when the cell, known as the Khorasan Group, would attempt to strike a Western target.
• Baker, Peter; Cooper, Helene (24 September 2014). "US airstrikes target terror cell plotting attack". The Times of India. But one senior counterterrorism official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said the group might not have chosen the target, method or even the timing for a strike. An intelligence official said separately that the group was 'reaching a stage where they might be able to do something.'
• Shinkman, Paul D. (25 September 2014). "How 'imminent' was the Khorasan Group threat?". US News. 'I can't say with extreme confidence that we know we have in fact disrupted a specific attack,' Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said. ... Others believe the rhetoric is an attempt to massage the law. 'Their definition of imminent is really a stretch,' says James Pfiffner, a professor at George Mason University who specializes in presidential powers.
• Ackerman, Spencer (25 September 2014). "US officials unclear on threat posed by obscure al-Qaida cell in Syria". The Guardian. Hours before the strike, however, a different senior official had told the Guardian there was no indication of an imminent domestic threat from the group.

Hope these are helpful. I'll just flag the section for now and we can incorporate these into the article later. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the section says that the Khorasan group is alleged to have been preparing the plot and not definitively that they were, I feel like the section is ok as is. - SantiLak (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also those sources are just really saying that they didn't have as much specific intelligence on all of Khorasan's activities, not that the plot or intention to attack was invented or exaggerated. I don't really see how the factual accuracy of the section should be under dispute as it distinguishes that there was an alleged plot and that the US claimed that Khorasan possessed certain capabilities. The section continues to be factually accurate as it does not state anything factually about the plot besides that the leader is one person and that the US bombed certain facilities of theirs, the rest is distinguished as alleged. - SantiLak (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The section as it is now indicates there were fears of a well-realized, imminent plot, while later statements indicate that there was nothing more than a vague feeling that the group pose a threat at an unknown future time. To fix this problem, there needs to be a paragraph or so along the following lines.

Other statements by intelligence officials indicated that the threat of a plot was much less severe than initially reported. Officials indicated that "there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works" and that "there was no indication of an imminent domestic threat from the group" at the time the United States began bombing.

The refs I gave above would be incorporated to support the statements and quotes. Any objections to my adding this? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If we can get an RS saying that there are significant allegations that it was exaggerated for propaganda purposes then we should probably include an sentence or two about that. Juno (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what qualifies as "significant" allegations. The Intercept (above) made some fairly strong statements to this effect. A couple more sources that discuss this:

• Makarechi, Kia (29 September 2014). "Did the Government Invent an "Imminent" Threat to Bolster Support for War?". Vanity Fair. Shortly after the United States began conducting air strikes in Syria, the Pentagon revealed that it was not only bombing ISIS targets, but also a group that was all but previously unheard of in the public sphere: the Khorasan Group. A week later, however, serious questions exist about whether the group was, as claimed, about to attack the United States, and whether it even exists.
• Lund, Aron (23 September 2014). "What Is the "Khorasan Group" and Why Is the U.S. Bombing It in Syria?". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The sudden flurry of revelations about the 'Khorasan Group' in the past two weeks smacks of strategic leaks and political spin. Even if the information provided is entirely correct, which it may well be, the timing can hardly be coincidental ... Rather, these leaks seem to have been designed to bolster the case for strikes against the Nusra Front, after a public debate that had, until then, focused only on the Islamic State.

The US News and Guardian articles above also quote a couple of sources discussing the legal implications of whether the threat is "imminent" or not. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That trips the line for me. I would favor the inclusion of 1, maybe 2 sentences. Juno (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think David O. Johnson's edits were pretty good in putting it in 2 sentences with quotes. - SantiLak (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this? I don't see anything regarding this in the article at present. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the section in the article it it is right there. - SantiLak (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was actually the one who added that. There is currently nothing regarding allegations of propaganda or legal implications, however. I'm actually not so sure any more that such content belongs in this article; there is some coverage of that on the Khorasan Group article already. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"rebels" vs. "opposition"

"rebels" was recently changed to "opposition". At first I thought "that term seems unencyclopedic, its vague and they're not the only ones opposed to the government". Then I realized that all of those thoughts also apply to the term "rebels". Is there some other term that more specifically describes the rebels that the US is not bombing? Do they have an established name in the press? Juno (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The three militant groups listed in that section are extensions of the Syrian opposition, and that article goes into a lot more detail. The Syrian opposition are distinct from ISIS "rebels" in that they are actually Syrian (a large but indeterminable percentage of ISIS—quite possibly most of them—are foreign) and they have legitimate political aspirations (rather than an ill defined notion of a global Caliphate). Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Foreigners shouldn't be the line to distinguish, there are lot of foreigners in the opposition, probably a few where foreigners are a majority. We also should not be in the business of determining whose political aspirations are legitimate. Juno (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate in as much as they are internationally recognized. The "Islamic State" does not enjoy any recognition what-so-ever, where as the SNC does from tens of nation states. Hope that makes what I was saying clearer for you. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No one recognizes the Kurds but we chuck them in as well. Juno (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What to call ISIS?

I noticed that both the ISIS & ISIL acronyms are used throughout the article. The group is also called the "Islamic State" in the infobox. We should standardize it, but we probably should have a discussion first about what to call it. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I use IS as an acronym but am fine with ISIS or even ISIL. - SantiLak (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If "Islamic State" is chosen as the standard term, then it is probably short enough to be written in full. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Although perhaps referring to them as "the Islamic State" might have some non-neutral connotations. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• It seems like most of our news sources go by ISIS? Is there a way to see how many ghits each term gets without prejudicing the results by lumping in people talking about Archer? Juno (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that when governments talk about it they call it ISIL and the media calls it ISIS, and only some people call it IS or the Islamic State. I have used just Islamic State or IS in the article but we probably should make it standard throughout the article except in certain places like if we were for example discussing how they changed names. We don't want to confuse people reading the article who might see ISIL one place and then ISIS and then IS. - SantiLak (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Name of Articles

Just as of today, the Department of Defense released a new name for the intervention, Operation Inherent Resolve. I am not proposing that we move the article or merge it but considering the whole issue that happened with Operation Odyssey Dawn being separated from 2011 military intervention in Libya. What I am wondering is if we should just leave the two US-intervention articles including this one alone and just mention that they are now called Operation Inherent Resolve or whether we should move the articles to for example Operation Inherent Resolve (Syria) and Operation Inherent Resolve (Iraq). I am looking to get some other opinions but for now people searching Operation Inherent Resolve will go to this page which has links to the two specific intervention pages and the broader intervention article. I await your thoughts on the issue. - SantiLak (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose using such names, as they show a clear WP:POV, just as I opposed using Operation Protective Edge. Leave these alone, and merely mention that the American authorities call their operations as such. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Mention, maybe redirect, but do not rename. Operation name covers US actions, while our articles cover coalition actions. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose On this basis, why don't we move the articles to the IS name for these actions? To decide to name the actions based on what the U.S. defense ministry calls them is extremely POV. DocumentError (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick question what are you referring to when you say the "IS name." I am just a little confused. - SantiLak (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IIRC they refer to this as the Righteous Campaign Against the Disbelievers or something. So I'd say, to maintain NPOV, we have as much of a case to rename the article "Righteous Campaign Against the Disbelieves" as we do to rename it "Operation Inherent Resolve." Obviously that would be insane. This is why we should keep the names as-is. DocumentError (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was just interested in what you meant. - SantiLak (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Leave the articles alone, but mention that the American authorities have named their operation that. -SantiLak (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• comment User:SantiLak notified me of this discussion. I have no opinion on the issue but an additional guideline/naming-convention you need to consider is WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the two individual articles, small article on the name of the Operation Juno (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose Think of it like renaming 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict back to Operation Protective Edge may seem a bit controversial in that case, but as stated above by SantiLak, it's best to update each of the articles about the new codename.
• Oppose That seems to be the name for the whole damn show as related to the American-led intervention against ISIS. This is about the American led portion in solely Syria. And there isn't an article solely for all the American led effort. You can mention this a part of it certainly. The disambiguous page that already exists solves any issues. If there is need this issue can be reviewed again later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose particularly to this oxymoronic "aggressive shield" type name. It seems like little more than spin. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The name of the US military Operation

A peculiarity of this conflict has been the naming (and lack there of) of the American actions. I originally wrote a separate section called "Nameless Intervention" on this article, as well as the one on Iraq and on the overarching campaign, and recently returned those sections to their original names. SantiLak reverted that return on the Iraq page with the understandable comment that "It isn't nameless anymore". David O. Johnson did the same on the Syria article and on the overarching article, for similar reasons. In 1 instance, the section has a "main" header that directs the reader to the overarching conflict article, where as I would favor one that directs the reader to the short article about the Operation name/naming controversy.

I think that there should be uniformity on these 2 points, and I wanted to bring together the other users who had commented on them to talk about it here. I will also leave notices on the other two relevant article talk pages.

Have involved editors been able to consider these questions? SantiLak? David O. Johnson?

I'm going to change things back to the original "nameless" wording. Juno (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What should the section be titled?

• Nameless intervention (or some variant there of) I believe that the name of the operation is most relevant because there wasn't one for so long. I think that the name of the section should reflect this, but am flexiable on the wording. Naming the section after the name of the operation is confusion, because every other American operation has had a name: it doesn't explain what is special about this one when it could. Juno (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Name of operation or something like that because it seems to work structure wise and recognizes that the operation is no longer nameless. - SantiLak (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a "main" redirect, and if so, where should it go

• Yes, to Operation Inherent Resolve I believe that this is the larger article about which the section is trying to act as a summary for. Juno (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible list strength box

Should we make the strength section of the infobox collapsible for the American side similar to how it is in the parent article. I think we should but I'm just looking for some other editors comments. -SantiLak (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Yes. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurds - location in Infobox

The Iraqi Kurds were initially inserted into the infobox as local ground forces. But, they are not local to Syria, are trained by the British, and given passage by NATO member Turkey after US diplomacy. Also the US-led coalition has obviously allied with the Kurds in Iraq. I have placed the Iraqi Kurds as "Coalition ground forces". Is there a better way to deal with them? Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that works, I added them there but it makes more sense the way you formatted it. -SantiLak (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

British-actions in Syria

I added the British contributions to this article, but upon reflection, am not totally sure that they belong here.

I do not know to what extent British action in Syria are being directed by the United States and they certainly are not part of the American-led US-Arab faction that originally bombed Syria.

Should the current (and likely future) British actions be mentioned in the body/infobox of this article, or should they be considered an outgrowth of Operation Shader? Juno (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The British said they were doing surveillance with drones. No way they would not coordinate that with the US Command unless they plan to have the drone shot done. There is some reports of British SAS on the ground in Kobani calling in airstrikes over the last several weeks. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume that the British actions are "coordinated", but are they American "lead" like the air strikes from the Arab countries were? Juno (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS

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.

---

In the article should we use the abbreviation ISIL, ISIS, or IS when describing the group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Indicate which one you support being used by bolding ISIL, ISIS, or IS and then providing a brief opinion of why. This is an expansion of the discussion above but a bit more structured. - SantiLak (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief opinion

Please briefly give your opinion and explain why - SantiLak (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• ISLE. I think ISLE is the most practical acronym, because it's more obvious than the other ones. It's not very easy to see where "ISIS" came from, and "IS" is too short, but it's easy to see where "ISLE" came from (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry. I got mixed up and I put "ISLE", but I really meant to put ISIL. ISIL is the term I prefer, because the major words in the name start with those letters (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• IS / Islamic State ("Islamic State" in first reference in a section, "IS" in subsequent) ISLE I second WritingEnthusiast; this seems to be a good compromise. "Islamic State" is the style guide mandated term employed by the Associated Press, BBC, New York Times and Reuters [[5]]. It is, therefore, the most widely understood and will be most comprehensible to the average reader, particularly those for whom English is not their first language. DocumentError (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Take that up with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where "Islamic State" has been consistently rejected multiple times as confusing and misleading. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's not a RfC there. There is here. DocumentError (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• ISIL or IS I am fine with either one. ISIL is the abbreviation for their former declared but currently recognized name and is used by governments and across much of wikipedia but Islamic State is used by major news groups as DocError pointed out. - SantiLak (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL – We must have consistency. If you'd like to change then name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, be my guest. Until then, we must use ISIL. There is no need to confuse readers with a maze of acronyms and initialisms. Stick with what is consistent. ISIL is what is consistent. "ISLE" is original research, and has no place in the encyclopedia. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL: It's a matter of consistency. Yes, the average reader is going to be familiar enough with this group to understand "ISIS" as well, but stylistically, "ISIL" is better. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• IS: This is what the organization calls themselves. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they call themselves. It matters what we call them. We call them Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as the result of many arduous discussions at that page. As a result, we must use the acronym ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, we can do anything we want, with consensus. That includes changing our mind. DocumentError (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't do whatever you want and bypass consensus at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• ISIL for the sake of consistency. ISIS also gets coverage in the press. Oppose IS in respect to significant Muslim opposition for which "RS" in the media have "reliably" shown their contempt. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL as it is referred to as on most news agencies that talk about it. As per above reasons it should be referred to as this. --Acetotyce (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Use names that are contextually appropriate:

1. When referring to the group after 29 June 2014 use (the) Islamic State (IS).
2. When referring to the group between 8 April 2013 and 29 June 2014 use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
3. When referring to the group between 12 October 2006 and 8 April 2013 use Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
4. When referring to the group with an indefinite (generic) time period or through multiple time periods use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). (Example: "Throughout ISIL's history....")
5. When referring to the group before 12 October 2006 use the name of corresponding article title.

I've also made this suggestion at the ISIL talk page here. These are just suggestions, not meant to be rules. If IS is not to be used then ISIL is consensus decision made on the ISIL talk page.~Technophant (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• ISIL and not Islamic State (not islamic and not a state) or IS (which IS a word) or ISIS (a god). This was decided here after a long running discussion. ISIL consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text As far as I know, no other broad discussion has reached any other conclusion. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL Honestly, I prefer the name ISIS better. It is obvious that it is not the Egyptian God because it is all capitalized. It just seems to me that the term ISIL was created so that the US government and the UN could avoid mentioning Syria when talking about ISIS (of course this is just speculation). However, since the title of the parent article is Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and not Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, we must keep consistency throughout Wikipedia and use the term ISIL in the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves to date

Rename; 13 August 2013; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; Moved Requested Move; 29 June 2014; Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; not moved Requested move 2; 29 June 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State; no consensus Requested move; 31 July 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; Procedurally closed Requested move; 8 August 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State; Not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State". Move; 20 August 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization); Quick close (no move) Move request - 6 September 2014;7 September 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State; Not moved, rough consensus against Requested move 17 September 2014;17 September 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation); No consensus for the move

• ISIS is the common name and seems to be favored by reporters, particularly in international coverage. Juno (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIS is, by far, the most common name, in English sources. In Portuguese it's "Estado Islâmico" (Islamic State), but I don't think that for the English Wikipedia, the most common name in Portuguese is relevant at all. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. "ISIS" has been consistently rejected at the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article. Until you can change the name of that article as such, "ISIS" makes no sense. We must have consistency, and hence we must use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• ISIL for consistency. Instead of trying to get this standardized by going to each individual article has anyone considered opening and appropriately Advertising an RFC that asks this once and for all?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL - per arguments above. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL - per arguments above and consistency. Not IS or Islamic State regardless of what some media chooses to use. 70.78.41.231 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

While the changes you made were obviously in GF and there is no need for removal, in the future you need to wait for the RfC to finish before you change the entire page. - SantiLak (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• ISIL because that has been what the Pentagon has been calling them. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIS or ISIL - ISIS is by far the most common name, at least amongst Americans. But ISIL has consensus here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL, for consistency with the article of the group itself. If that title is changed, then the acronym should be too. ansh666 02:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• ISIS appears to be the most commonly known acronym: [6] Uhlan ^talk 06:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the issue more here - SantiLak (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The article should remain consistent in its use of the acronyms. Calling the group 'IS' in one part of the article, 'ISIL' in another, and 'ISIS' in a different part is counter-productive and simply confuses the reader. It should be only called one of those acronyms throughout the article. After all, we don't call the French Empereor Napoleone depending on whether he was on Corsica or not. Uhlan ^talk 20:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Thats is the real point of the discussion which is to establish which one we want to use throughout the article. - SantiLak (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Preliminary count: ISIL= 18 votes, ISIS= 4 votes, IS= 4 votes, a combination of all three= 1 vote. Uhlan ^talk 04:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference formatting

Per WP:REFERENCE, I think its important to remember to use {{cite news}} formats when citing news articles and usually its easier to use a simplified format like the cite news|url= |title= |publisher= |date= |accessdate= format for example. The cite web reference formats are not really for news articles. That format shown above can be found almost everywhere in the article. I have noted this before in my edit summaries but its really important to remember because this article is quite important and we really should keep citation formats right even though it may seem trivial. - SantiLak (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to 2014 Military intervention in Syria or 2014 American-led intervention in Syria (the original names proposed here), per the discussion below. Also note that 2014 coalition intervention in Syria is likely to be too imprecise to garner support. Dekimasuよ! 22:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

---

American-led intervention in Syria → A. 2014 Military intervention in Syria, or
→ B. 2014 coalition intervention in Syria –
Reasons for Options A and B:
1. to match titles such as 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
2. to recognise that its not just the United States involved. This may have been pretty well the case when the article was first moved to current title but it isn't the case now. There are a large number of strong willed member states of the coalition including many Arabic, European and other nations including the Brits - I don't think that my people's (or Arabic or other people's) blood should be given less recognition.
3. If anything the common Wikipedia terminology related to political and military affairs should relate to US-led. American is slightly ambiguous as the name is shared with two continents.
4. The current title content conforms to a tendency that I have seen in many middle-east topic articles to highlight the involvement of "America". Articles have had many piped links added so as to display other titles with a link that has displayed America or the US in the title. I personally interpret this as a political agenda that is being followed in Wikipedia editing and I think that a previous prevalence of this type of content may have influenced the article title.
Thanks. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for Option B:
1. Merely American-led intervention in Syria is ambiguous in relation to the the time period.
2. There could be later interventions that may need to be differentiated.
3. Just "military intervention" is too general, also, this article is primarily about the American-led intervention; there are other articles for major intervening countries, and unless we are going to merge them all (which we are not going to do), there's no reason for the article title to be shortened.
4. All of the intervention articles have a date, in one format or another.
Please consider the second option, as it is probably best suited for this article. Thanks, LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

[Above comment is made out of time sequence. See related comment at 13:38, 25 November 2014 below]

I have contacted many contributors to this article and to other discussions in the talk page as to increase input. - SantiLak (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 American-led intervention in Iraq → 2014 Military intervention in Iraq

• Move to "2014 military intervention ...": As noted by the nominator, the current titles may reflect ambiguous WP:EDITORIALIZING. The role of "America" in the intervention can be discussed in the article, but seems unnecessary and potentially POV in the title. But I don't see why "military" should be uppercased. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "2014 Military intervention" I oppose the change specifically to that title because it opens up the inclusion of groups that were not part part of this intervention such as Iran or Syria. Also if we were to move it, it would make more sense to move it to something that isn't as broad, maybe something like "2014 coalition intervention in Syria". That would make more sense in order to make it clear that it is still a coalition. Also I'm not sure if you are aware but the US has still carried out the vast majority of strikes in Syria. The Arab partners have done so as well but have been lead by the US. Also the UK has only carried out surveillance flights and no other European countries have joined the Syria intervention. The title isn't "American intervention in Syria" but "American-led intervention in Syria" and the title is still totally accurate with the circumstances. A move to a different title may be reasonable in the future if for example Turkey joins the coalition but definitely not now. - SantiLak (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose total rubbish proposal – Request immediate closure of this rubbish proposal, as we went through this before at 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. Reliable sources call the coalition "American-led", as it is American-led, and just-plain "military intervention" is ambiguous. Rubbish about "American referring two continents" is a total falsity. In English, "American" only refers to the United States of America, and to Americans. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia, so if you've got a bone to pick with the English language, take it elsewhere. The present title is apt. It is what sources call the intervention. It describes it adequately. It is quite clear that the proposer is trying to right great wrongs, as opposed to doing anything for the good of the encyclopaedia, as based in reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 23:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Strong Support for move to 2014 American-led intervention in Syria only, but Strong Oppose move to the first option - Per the reasons provided by User:RGloucester above. Remember, this article is primarily about the US intervention in Syria, hence the current name. However, the date should be specified, as they may or may not be multiple interventions in Syria at later times, so the article should only be renamed to the title I suggested. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I would rather leave out the 2014 date until a new intervention happens in the future. For now it is not necessary to clarify which intervention it is. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Move to 2014 Military intervention in Syria , per nom's arguments. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia isn't here to promote political positions. America referring to the USA is both done and known in the countries who oppose this usage. The day that America isn't the common name for the USA you come back. We are not here to unduly legitimize things like this. The proponents of this position can legitimize it without our assistance. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The US is the primary supporter of the intervention in Syria. Iran is not cooperating with the US government (or that's what the US Government says anyway, we do not really know the full story on that detail). Nevertheless, until Iran begins openly working with the United States or until other nations participate equally with the US in the intervention, I would leave the article title alone. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Wars are rarely named after the main combatant if there are more than two nations involved, plus it's better to be consistent. Uhlan ^talk 02:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose either name because:
• Year is not needed as a) There (shockingly) has never been an American intervention in Syria. b) its going to go well beyond 2014.
• "American" is universally used to mean United States of America.
• There have been multiple nations involving themselves in Syria Civil War. A less specific title immediately will be followed by insertions of Iran and Hezbollah involvement and a massive war over which countries get more coverage. That's one of the main things that prompted the creation of this article and its sister 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq
• I recall that the 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant started out with an American-led title and focus, but that was scraped for similar reasons as presented here. As soon as it became more general in name editors forced in all kinds of poorly sourced crap about Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and Syrian Govt so the whole focus of the article had to shift to fit the title. The proposed title will create a similar issue, but worse because the intervention is not limited to ISIL.
• we have Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War already.
• I'm NOT an American and I;m not bothered by the American-led title of either this or the Iraq article.
• this article is not the name of the war, it is about a group of nations intervention in the Syrian Civil War, with the US being the leader.

Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There are lots of militaries intervening is Syria, this article is not about all of them. Iran and Russia would argue that they're a coalition intervening against ISIS, we're just covering the one of them. Juno (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment as original nominator of the RM would suggest that this RM be closed so that a new RM be opened proposing a move such as 2014 coalition intervention in Syria or 2014 coalition military intervention in Syria. The current title is ludicrous as it suggests that groups, including Syrian Kurdistan, YPG, the Free Syrian Army and local guerrillas , are "American led". (My original post in this thread was refactored by another editor without notification being given. I have refactored the affected part of this post with content fitting with the chronological flow of information presented. I notified the editor concerned of the changes here with the notification being deleted yesterday (with apology in comment) here. I apologise for the resultant repetition of option B. Here is the state of the thread before my refactoring. I do not see the point of the original change). Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Related Article nominated for deletion

I found this new article via a link in the ISIL article. 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)