Talk:List of wars involving the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move to List of wars involving the United States

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The proposed new title would be much more precise than the current title. "American wars" is not very clear; does it mean "wars fought on American soil," "wars fought in the Americas," "wars fought by people of the Americas," or something entirely different? It is quite clear from the list that it refers to wars involving the United States as one of the principle combatants. While the full title "List of wars involving the United States as one of the principle combatants" would be even more precise, it is a bit too long and awkward. I think my proposed title strikes a perfect balance of clarity and length. There should be no concern over the new term being less often searched, as redirects are still high on Google results; the number one result for "American liberalism" is still the Wikipedia article "Liberalism in the United States." -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support per my earlier comments. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. In this case the use of "American" seems ambiguous -- a list of wars fought in the Americas could have the same name (as in a list of Asian wars, African wars, etc). As well, the article would make one think that the wars are primarily about the U.S. (like the American Civil War) or just the U.S. and an adversary (Mexican-American War, American Revolution). I object, however, to terming the two World Wars as "American wars". --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support either this title or the one with "of America" below. Many categories and articles omit the "of America", so I don't see it as a major issue, but "America" does have several conflicting common uses. Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposition

• Oppose. To be precise, the new title should be List of wars involving the United States of America, as there is also United States of Mexico. That's unecessary however, the current name reads better. Also, when one says a thing like "American foreign policy" everybody understands that one means "US foreign policy" rather than something else. Same for "American wars". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This article has been renamed from List of American wars to List of wars involving the United States as the result of a move request. The possibility of confusion arising from the use of "United States" for the United States of America is negligible. --Stemonitis 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

See my comment above in Tightening the list.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

battles

If this is supposed to be a 'list of wars' as the name says, why are battles and battle operations included here? I am sure there are much better battle lists associated with each individual war (if not they can be created). Removing the battles would leave this a 'list of wars' as it claims it should be. Hmains 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction?

Why is Reconstruction era of the United States listed here? That period is not usually considered a war, and the main article about it does not refer to it as a war. Tt was a period of military occupation that followed the cessation of overt hostilities.

Unless someone can provide an explanation, preferably with support from some reputable authority that military historians in general consider Reconstruction to be a war, I will remove it from the list. -- Dominus (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing it now. -- Dominus (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

mistake

The last edit confused 3 wars together, involving the Moros and the Chinese. Please fix and review the rest of your edits to see that other wars did not get mixed up. Hmains (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Waldeck (state)

I think Waldeck-Pyrmont should link to Waldeck (state) not to Germany, shouldn't it --Boris 15:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borianium (talk • contribs)

Second Opium War

Why is this war listed? The USA is not even mentioned in the article for this war except to say that the British sent indentured Chinese over afterwards. There is no mention of combatants or even support and without that I can't imagine how the US could have been "involved". Should it be taken off this list or does the main article for the second opium war need a new section added? MultK (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Second Opium War clearly discusses the role of the US in the war Hmains (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

other wars

What about the korean or vietnam war? 164.58.224.236 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They're on there now. I'm not sure why the previous editor removed them. They weren't technically declared by Congress, and the constitutionality of that can be debated elsewhere, but they're still no less major wars fought by the United States. PaulGS 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War is already listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.84.3.14 (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

What about the Panama Canal Riots in 1964? 4 American soldiers were kill in combat. Also between 1859 and 1910 on the border with Mexico there were many combat action between the two nation. We were at war against pirates in the Caribbean between 1814 and 1825. Last but not least how about Trieste Italy between 1946 and 1956. A friend of mine said that he was shot at many times when he was station there. harding95Harding-95 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your entry "Panama Canal Zone Occupation, 1954-1964" for a couple of reasons. One, we do not have a WP:RS describing the event, much less giving us an article. Two, its' description is not acceptable based on WP:POV. The Canal Zone was not "occupied" in the sense that there was an agreement for the US to control (own) the Panama Canal Zone. Now many people did not like the fact that this occurred, but we are more interested in presenting unbiased articles, not advocating issues. Still, Harding, please continue your efforts to improve our encyclopedia. User contributions are welcome, and this welcome includes new editors. --S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

World War I

well?74.37.180.6 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

---

To all whining idiots

Killing soldiers of another country, or helping various regimes in military action is engagement in war. It's just a euphemistic semantics for all imperalists to call it "engagement" or "operation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.96.44 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Win/loss records

i think we should add whether the USA won or lost each of those wars next to the name of the war in parentheses. We should use win, loss, stalemate, unclear, or not yet finished. Commissarusa (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose we put an accurate list as well of the number of dead as a result of the war, soldiers/civilians, something of that nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.164.137 (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that article is a bit "patriotic" in the choice of words. Victories are clearly worded as "victory" for the most part, sometimes with predicates as "decisive". Losses are usually not clearly marked as such, but rather sugar coated by say things like "withdrawal" or "X takes power in Y". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.152.229 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

not wars

This list includes several items that are not wars, such as the US government helping in the overthrow of the government in Iran and later Chile. They should be on a list of US government intervention in the internal political, social, economic affairs of other countries, but not here. Your thoughts? Hmains (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I came here looking for a list of actual wars (ie with a formal declamation of war) as opposed to a list of countries where the US military has done something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.220.237 (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you only want wars with a formal declaration, here's your list: War Of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Done. I do agree that coups shouldn't be on here though. --68.8.14.28 (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tightening the list

There are some conflicts listed that do/did not involve the United States, such as the Battle of The Alamo (oddly not linked) and the Fatah-Hamas conflict. Also, why are battles and campaigns listed for some wars and not others. -Acjelen 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I just came here looking for comments on the latter subject. I think all battles and campaigns that are part of the listed wars should be removed, leaving only standalone battles/campaigns that were not part of a listed war. Hmains 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This list is very similar to List of United States military history events except that list seems more comprehensive. For example that list includes US military intervention in Nicaragua between 1909 and 1933 whereas this list makes no mention of it. Yet this list mentions US military intervention in Somalia in the War on Terrorism. Both events are similar. The only distinction I can see revolves around the semantic use of the word "war". You might say that the US Congress did not authorize the military intervention in Nicaragua, while you might have an argument that it authorized the use of force in Somalia through the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. However, this list does not seem to depend on Congressional authorization because it includes the Cold War which was not a declared war. See Declaration of war by the United States. I think this list should either be merged with List of United States military history events or explicitly say it only covers declared "wars" (which it might be helpful to define) or uses of force authorized by Congress.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would the Alamo be a part of this list? Texas wasn't a part of the United states, and actually after the war for its independence from Mexico, was an independent state for 10 or so years before joining the US.

My question as I stated separately, is why is it broken down into separate battles campaigns at all? That isn't what the Title of the page states, nor is it what most people are looking for when they do a search for that Title topic. Someone went too far in this list to something completely different that the original intent. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Cold "War" wasn't a war

The Cold "War" wasn't a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.205.175 (talk • contribs)

It's just as much a war as the GWOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.3.14 (talk • contribs)

I'd agree with you on the Cold War, although given the perception by many that actual war could have occurred at any time, I don't really mind if it stays. The war on terrorism, though, is an actual war, in both Afghanistan and Iraq (and perhaps elsewhere in the future). PaulGS 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is the war on terror, then what about the war on poverty?

The Government won that one; the poor lost. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a war; it was the name given for the domestic policy of shrinking the poverty rate. The War on Terror is an actual war that's being fought around the globe by dozens of nations.

The GWOT isn't a war either. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not yet stooped to declaring war on a tactic. The GWOT is international policy, currently utilizing two wars and a range of diplomatic and investigative efforts. When the current wars end, the GWOT will probably continue, possibly including other wars but certainly involving diplomacy and spycraft.66.82.9.87 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cold war was mainly USA vs. USSR, with several countries taking sides, mostly (but not exclusively) through NATO and Warsaw pact. Yugoslavia was neutral, it was never member of Warsaw pact, and almost ended up in military conflict with USSR in 50's over maintaining its independence from USSR influence. It shouldn't be listed as allied to either side in this particular conflict. Other then few UN missions, I don't think there were any instances of ex-Yugoslavia army (Yugoslavia as it existed from the end of WW2 in 1945 to its breakup in 1991) participating in any actual military operations or conflicts, hot or cold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.152.229 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree neither the Cold War nor the War on Terror really should be on this list. More so the Cold War. Just look at the opening paragraph of the Cold War on Wikipedia. It clearly does not fit the intent of this page.96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the Mormon war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

Wikipedia calls it the Utah War. I find it very very interesting that its not here... I would include it but I want to make sure everyone is in agreement with this.

Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Formatting and data inconsistencies

The use of bold and italics is not consistent, especially in the Campaign or Theater column. In fact, it's not clear why some text are bolded, some are italicized, or why some are bold and italicized. I'd fix it if I understood what those differences are supposed to mean. Capitalization of "Part of XYZ War" is also inconsistent.

Also, the text at the top of the list says, "Dates indicate the years in which the United States was involved in the war." However, it seems many of the entries simply list the official start and end of the war, regardless of U.S. involvement. Something like the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 is included despite U.S. support being listed as "unofficial".

—Samatict (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wars?

What is the subject of the article? Based on the name, I'd assume that it's wars involving the US.

Not every battle is part of a war. Militaries CAN and OFTEN conduct operations tha fall short of war. Homeland defense, support to civil authorities, and peacekeeping operations come to mind. So do campaigns to settle a frontier or quell an uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.61.72.6 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Things that are not wars

I've just removed War on Drugs; despite the catchy name, it is not reasonable to call it a war per se. I've also removed:

• the Bering Sea Anti-Poaching Operations, some form of militarised policing
• the Egyptian Expedition (1882), which seems to have been a form of armed intervention to protect US interests without actually engaging in combat
• the Honolulu Courthouse Riot, which was - as the name suggests - a riot quelled by troops
• the Chilean Civil War of 1891, which was included due to the Itata Incident, the capture of a shipment of illegal weapons by a neutral international squadron

There are likely several more incidents or marginal involvements not describable as wars, but this is a start. For the twentieth century, RAND's database of USAF military operations other than war may be a useful third-party perspective on what shouldn't be listed. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On consideration, a lot of this may be more appropriately shifted across to Timeline of United States military operations. I've moved all four minor events. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved several more across - the Battle of Boca Teacapan, Burning of Colón, the Samoan crisis and First Samoan Civil War, and the Rio de Janeiro Affair. I am unsure what to do about the Second Samoan Civil War; our article is very vague on what the US involvement actually was. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced information and continued edits by "new" users and/or IPs

Since this "article" is an unsourced list article, I believe it should be protected and nothing should be added or changed unless backed or refuted by a reliable source along with the appropriate discussion. The addition of the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, with no reliable source, to the list of opponents of the U.S. during World War I is historically incorrect and is an example of pathetically inept editing on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Accordingly, Abel has decided to edit war his opinion into the article and has not seen fit to discuss the re-adding of the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria as opponents of the U.S. during World War I, I have added an original research tag to this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

possible addition wars in the 19th century

I don't want to add any of these myself; some may only qualify as military actions.

1806 Mexico, 1808–10 Sak & Fox, 1810 Florida, 1819 Kickapoo, 1820–22 Peru, 1822–23 Cuba, 1824 Puerto Rico, 1822 US slave rebellion, 1825 Cuba, 1828 West Indies, 1830 Haiti, 1831 Choctaw, 1831–32 Falklands, 1832–34 Chickasaw, 1834–35 Osceola, 1835 Samoa, 1836 Creek, 1837 Mexico, 1837–1840 Canada (Patriots' War), 1838 Canada (Aroostock War), 1843 Ivory Coast, 1844 Texas, 1845 Sac & Fox sessions, 1850–51 Mariposa War (?), 1851–52 Yuma & Mohave, 1851 Turkey, 1851 Johanna Island, 1852–53 Argentina, 1853–56 China, 1853 Smyrna, 1853–54 Japan, 1854 Ryukyus, 1855 Uruguay, 1854–60 Nicaragua, 1854 Sioux, 1860 Angola, 1856–57 Cheyenne, 1858–59 Coeur d'Alene, 1867 Nicaragua, 1869–71 Dominican Rep, 1870 Mexico, 1873 Panama, 1888 Haiti, 1893 Hawaii, 1894 Brazil, 1894 Nicaragua.

That leaves out the 1820–1845 ethnic cleansing of the Southeast. — kwami (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

confusing

Each separate war has different opponents. The manner in which the wars within the Cold War and the 'War on Terrorism', for example, are grouped togther is confusing. One cannot read the list and quickly see who were the opponents of each confict. This is not helpful. Each war needs to be split out. If that means another column, then so be it. Hmains (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My beef is with those who want a "Second Korean War". I've initiated a discussion to get the article merged into Korean War (see discussion). At least this article uses the term "conflict" in addition to "war". But I would hope that War, as a term, is reserved for the truly serious and deadly business that soldiers engage in, vice "war on drugs" etc. --S. Rich 07:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This list needs to differentiate between support roles and actual combatant roles. The US was involved in many of these that are listed as defeats only so far as providing supplies and basic, non-military personnel type support. Cannot be listed as a defeat if the country was never actually involved in direct combat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.71.111 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Include CIA wars

As this article appears to be guarded vigilantly by various interested parties, I'm-a need some consensus for adding several CIA-led wars to the list, such as –

• 1973 Chilean coup d'état
• 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

I'm not even gonna list all of them here. I just want support from other editors so that I don't get into a 1-on-1 edit war. And, just a "pre-emptive strike", if I may – just because they are officially not labelled as "wars" doesn't mean that they are not. "Military campaigns involving the US" is a valid synonym, and I actually suggest we change the name of the article to that – especially bearing in mind the farcical situation that even the Timeline of United States military operations article doesn't mention these wars. BigSteve (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. We should only be listing wars that are actually declared. Special operations, or CIA operations where an actual "war" has not taken place should not be included on this list. If the US didn't treat it as a war, with actual full commitment, it should not be on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.71.111 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale changes of outcomes

Please use this area to make a case for EACH of the changes you wish to make. Some are particularly egregious, such as changing "Successful Rescue" to "Defeat." Others are more defensible. But before making such sweeping changes, please make your case here for each one. Lithistman (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Battle of Kororareka - successful rescue is an accurate statement BUT the outcome was Maori victory, making it a US defeat.
• Formosa Expedition - Recognised as a failure by the United States navy
• Mexican Revolution - deleted by a previous editor, presumably because the United States was on the losing side
• Allied interventions in Russia - Communists win. Indisputable.
• First Indochina War - France and US lose to Viet Minh
• Vietnam War - Communists win. Indisputable
• Laotian Civil War - Communists win. Indisputable
• Cambodian Civil War - Communists win. Indisputable

Peppered throughout recent edits were attempts to paint the US in a positive light. I am merely trying to maintain accuracy. The US has an extremely successful military, I don't understand why editors feel the need to make the US history even more impressive than it already is. And I will continue to review this article because it is constantly under attack by both pro-American and anti-American editors. Pro-American editors never hesitate to write 'victory' when the US is victorious, but when the US is defeated in wars they must find some excuse not to write 'defeat', which is what is written on every other country's list - and no country wins every war.DylanLacey (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In my view, you're simply replacing what you BELIEVE to be "jingoism" with your own anti-US POV. You need to stop, until these issues can be hashed out here. Lithistman (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the phrase jingoism. You requested I provide my case for the 'sweeping changes'. You haven't provided any rebuttal. DylanLacey (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

False outcomes

Many wars involving the United States have been incorrectly claimed as 'victories'. Simply by clicking on the articles you can find that these allegations are false. Editors who wish to change this should alter the respective articles by changing them to US victories with the use of reliable sources rather than making unsourced allegations of 'victory' on this page which does not utilise sources. DylanLacey (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• You pretend like calling something a "successful rescue" is the same as calling it a "victory." It's not. You seem to have an agenda to push, and that has no place in the article. Lithistman (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Has it crossed your mind that the editor who called the outcome 'successful rescue' could be the one who was pushing an agenda? If you care to look at a) the actual article or b) the corresponding sources, you will find that the Maori won the battle. Seeing as I literally live in the area this conflict took place and have studied it, and all the sources back my position, I feel my position is justified.DylanLacey (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gunboat

Isn't the Gunboat diplomacy considered an act of war ? I have in mind what led to the Bakumatsu, in Japan. Jean-no (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Defeat

Someone wont admit when America has been defeated. Withdrawal isn't an acceptable answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.168.216 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Every other wikipedia list of wars involving a country lists defeats as defeats. For example, when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan it was listed as a defeat on List of wars involving Russia. DylanLacey (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't about admitting anything. It's about listing facts and results of conflicts when and how they happened. "Withdrawal" is listed in other articles too, yet editors seem to only have a problem with it here. It is listed in another article as well that anti-communist forces in Vietnam did not lose a sizable battle, all branches included (respectively). Notice, "Red cloud's war" under this list of conflicts states "Defeat", because U.S. forces were defeated by the Native American coalition, though hostilities soon began again resulting in the defeat of the coalition. While stationed in Vietnam, anti-communist forces successfully repelled attempts by the North to annex the south, beginning heavily at the end of the conflict during the Tet Offensive, which lead to "Vietnamization", the end of direct combat support and eventually the evacuation of all anti-communist forces from South Vietnam, with the U.S. and Australia providing limited funding for the South until their collapse. America has faced a defeat and/or a failed objective in battle just as any other nation, but facts are facts. All I'm doing is listing them. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)}}

Discussion area for possible sectioning of this article

As @ User:UnbiasedVictory seems to have a problem with using the sections I came up with to divide this article (as well as with limiting the article to only ACTUAL wars and not skirmishes, battles, missions, etc.), we can use this as an area for commenting regarding potential sections. Lithistman (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, does it not say under "List of wars involving the United States" that "This is a list of wars and conflicts, xxx in all, involving the United States of America..."? Skirmishes and Battles do, by common sense, make up wars whether they're part of an officially declared conflict or not. Hence their inclusion into this list. Other countries do the same. Mexico, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, etc. I see no reason to edit the United States article any differently. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)}}

Battles are what make up wars in the same way that teams in a league are what make up that league. In the same way we wouldn't list "New England Patriots" in a "List of professional sports leagues", we should not list individual battles in a "List of wars." Lithistman (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

List section too long

The 'list' section is getting too long and difficult to edit/save. Should this section be split by century in which the wars began: 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st? Hmains (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have addressed this issue in the manner you suggested. I also pruned many non-wars, as suggested below. One of two things needs to happen: 1) Leave military conflicts that are NOT "wars" out; or 2) Change the name of the list to "List of military conflicts..." or some such thing. The conflicts I pruned are not REMOTELY "wars." Lithistman (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose this be reduced by removal of single battles or events. Since when was the operation that killed Bin Laden a 'war'? Yes it's part of the larger war of terror but it is not in and of itself a war, it's a military exercise. Similarly, every single skirmish or interaction with Indians does not need to be listed. List should be the key 'war' headings under which larger battles took place. The headings for the wars can then lead through to a breakdown of particular battles and their victory/losses within those as necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.37.13 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I support this entirely. I wish I would've seen this note before I made so many edits changing wordings of outcomes on individual battles. Without objection, I will begin paring the listings that are obviously one-off battles within the larger context of a war. Lithistman (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict additions to the current list

I agree with the current form of the list. I do feel, however, that conflicts such as the "Whiskey Rebellion", "Pakistan-United States border skirmishes" and "Bering Sea Arbitration" should be included in the list, due to the fact that they all involved/involve at least one of the five branches of the United States military, and this is a list of wars and conflicts involving the constituents of United States government forces. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very glad we've reached consensus on sectioning. That's a good start. But this article is not (at least as yet) "a list of wars and conflicts involving the constituents of United States government forces." It's a "List of wars involving the United States." And minor skirmishes, arbitrations, etc. are not, in fact, wars. Perhaps there might develop support for expanding the name of the list to incorporate a broader scope. But as it stood before I pruned back some entries that clearly were not "wars" at all, it was so overlong as to be unuseful.

Sigh... I give up.

Battles are not "wars." Neither are "expeditions." Or "troubles." Yet all of these are creeping back into the list. If you want to start a list titled, "List of military conflicts involving the United States", you should do so. But shoehorning non-wars into a specifically titled list of "wars" should not be acceptable. But your persistence at this has won the day. I tried to unclutter the list. But the clutter is returning, slowly but surely. So now I'll leave it to someone else who might be interested in working on this article to deal with the clutter. Lithistman (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts involving the United States revision

[This comment has been relocated from my personal talkpage to here, the appropriate forum.]
It makes no sense to me why you delete conflicts involving the United States when they.. well, involved the United States. The conflicts I've added involved the the U.S. and allied nations invading and overthrowing another country's government, how does this not fit under "List of wars and conflicts involving the United States"? You've edited other articles and the information has been sufficient, but this is not. So I'm revising your revision. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply put, the name of the article is NOT, in fact, "List of wars and conflicts involving the United States." If you wish to see it renamed, make that proposal, and we can see where consensus is on that issue. As it stands, however, your continual insistence on readding events that are not, in fact, "wars" is unconstructive. And your reversions without edit summaries are quite rude, given that only blatant vandalism should be reverted without an edit summary. Lithistman (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lithistman that this article has gotten awfully cluttered with armed disagreements that aren't "wars", and would benefit from a little prudential pruning. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the name of the article isn't "List of wars and conflicts involving the United States". However, the description of the article, before the actual list, clearly states: "This is a list of wars and conflicts involving the United States of America...". Please, if you will, describe to me how an invasion of another country and toppling of its regime fails to qualify as a conflict involving the United States. After the additions were made, I saw no clutter that made the page impractical. If I did, they would have been deleted from the article. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the article would be best served if the folks who have opinions on what qualifies as a "conflict" worthy of inclusion were to try to agree on appropriate criteria, and go forward from there. Certainly it's a better path than a series of edits and reversions. JohnInDC (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, John. As for the "and conflicts involving" phrase that has crept into the lede for some reason, it's poorly worded and will be shortly removed. This is not a dumping ground for every single time United States forces were ever engaged anywhere in the world. It's a place to list the wars in which the United States were engaged. Lithistman (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. I don't agree with, however, making a different list for conflicts involving the United States, and keeping this list for just "wars". They're all listed on the list of wars involving Australia, Great Britain and Canada so why would this page be any different? I believe the "Brazilian Naval Revolts" should be deleted because the U.S. was only involved in the Rio de Janeiro affair, which was an uneventful and bloodless American victory. But I also believe the "occupations of.." conflicts should remain on the list. If large scale invasions and an overthrow of government doesn't count as a war, nothing else on this list does either. The "Tanker War" should remain included as well. For one, it includes the term "war" (small joke), and involved the execution of several operations in support for Iraq. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree about excluding the BNR. But you should refrain from readding non-wars until and unless you find consensus for either: (A) changing the title of the list; or (B) starting a new list to include all the battles, conflicts, expeditions, and other such non-wars. Lithistman (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well considering the vast majority of articles about wars and conflicts involving other countries are all on one page, I think it's only right to change the article's current title. With its title changed, there's really not much to add and what needs to be deleted has already. That being said, I honestly don't know how to gain consensus for this. If you agree with this plan, perhaps combined with an official agreement from John, I'll consider that a consensus and go ahead and make the changes to the title.. assuming I can. Bumpy start aside, I appreciate the civility you've shown in solving this issue. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to propose that title change, and see if it has support. I certainly would not support it, as the length of such a list would become completely unwieldy and render the list utterly unuseful, in my opinion. Lithistman (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. It would be a bit of work for something that may or may not be approved, and will more than likely end in additional clutter. I'd rather just change the description of the article, under the title, to "list of wars and conflicts involving the United States..." (Keeping the current title) and only add the banana wars to this list, which is a collection of four conflicts, including the Spanish-American War. I thought the version I added last night was okay, with the conflicts being listed as part of the banana wars and making a bit more room on the page. But if you agree to this general plan, I'll begin making the minor additions to the description as well as the list, unless you have something to add or change, and we can finally put this to rest. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What we've been trying to get across (and apparently not succeeding in doing so) is that the list AS IT STANDS is too long and cluttered. There is certainly no need to expand it from a list of ACTUAL WARS in which the U.S. has been involved, to a list of every time the U.S. military has ever been engaged. Doing so would be counterproductive to the aim of cleaning up the current list, and making it more concise and useful as a reference. Lithistman (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm well aware of what you're trying to get across. However, I don't see how deleting conflicts that are actually wars to erase "clutter" is beneficial to this site and the educational purposes it represents. Other lists are double this length. But it's not about the length and how tidy the page looks, it's about listing all wars involving this country to educate the site's viewers, which is why people come here. And I, personally, don't see how hard it is to understand that "Banana Wars" belongs on this list of wars. Not only did it shorten the page, it detailed the conflicts of the Banana Wars in a practical manner that also included its respective results. Nothing else on the page needs to be added or deleted. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What is a "war" for purposes of inclusion on this page?

As John mentions in the above discussion, it would be helpful to define what qualifies as a "war" for inclusion on this page. I am opening this comment thread, so that discussion can be had. Lithistman (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

One question for discussion too would be, how should this list of wars differ from Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations? JohnInDC (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to differ in detail. This list gives a visual aid with flagicons and in-depth bulleted results rather than standard text. Plus, this lists wars in general rather than the individual actions of each respective war, something I've noticed with other countries. Which is why I suggested the "Banana Wars" addition to the list. Instead of listing the "Spanish-American War", you could add the larger Banana Wars to the list which that war was part of. When I made the edit before, the page was shortened having incorporated that war into one slot with the others (to mention the clutter issue you brought up earlier). Just my two cents. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue with "Banana Wars" is that the "Spanish-American War" is a war that is actually recognized for the U.S. having participated in it. The "Banana Wars" are not. This list should be such that a college-educated American would likely recognize the listed "war" from some point in their history education. Lithistman (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can recognize one conflict involving a larger group of wars and not recognize participation in the other wars of the group. Plus, history textbooks printed may have sufficient information but they will not include a list this in-depth involving the wars of the United States. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I even understand the issue with the Banana Wars. I agree that listing the Spanish-American War under "Banana Wars" is confusing to any reader who isn't already a student of US Military history (this is the first time I remember hearing the term applied to that war) but otherwise am not sure what the disagreement is about. More to the point, I think it'd be helpful to devise general principles here rather than sort out disagreements one by one. JohnInDC (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Some points I think are very important:

1. Battles within larger wars should not be included;
2. Expeditions that happened to contain some form of military engagement should not be included;
3. Only wars in which the United States was one of the primary combatants should be included;

   Notes: Once the above three pieces are implemented, then the wars that are listed can be fleshed out in a bit more detail, making this list far more useful than it is, even in its current "trimmed" state. And it seems very practical to simply shift those expeditions, battles, etc. that are culled from this list to the more inclusive "timeline" mentioned above.

Lithistman (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo War was a victory

Since this list is from the perspective of the United States' involvement, and the U.S. objectives were seemingly achieved, how can the result "Both sides claim victory" be justified? The Serbian (FRY) army no longer occupies Kosovo and Kosovo has achieved a greater level of autonomy than it had even under the original Yugoslavia. The war itself was resolved in 1999. Yugoslavia/FRY no longer exists. I don't see that FRY/Serbia's objectives were achieved in any way, shape, or form. And looking past the U.S. objectives at the time, Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and is now recognized by 106+ nations including the U.S. Other than Russia and Serbia's opposition to formal recognition is there anything left in dispute? Red Harvest (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about this particular war or how to characterize its aftermath but, speaking as one who has come to this page fairly recently, these one-word scoreboard summaries seem shallow and clumsy, particularly since nearly all of the conflicts listed here, whatever the nature of their immediate resolution, or long or short-term consequences, are described unequivocally, without qualification and in bold face as "Victory". It's - silly. (Not to mention unsourced, or synthesis, or POV anyhow.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've also come to the page recently, and as a list some sort of "scoreboard" summary is almost inevitable. In most cases one could go to the referenced conflict and see a similar sort of short summary. The Kosovo War page lacks a one word summary, but does contain all the elements of a successful intervention making the "Both sides claim victory" part contradictory to the sourced material, or at least in some serious need of sourced support. Most of the evaluation of this particular war is not in the form of "win-loss" (that doesn't even appear to have been in dispute) but rather the legality vs. necessity of intervention, as well as the cost. If one needs a source for claiming a victory for one side or the other, the book Winning Ugly: NATO's War to Save Kosovo might provide it. Red Harvest (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Then some word other than "victory" would serve the purpose better. Wholly apart from the whole "W-L-T / current standings" tenor of the word, it's just inappropriate in cases where the issue of winning or losing or whatever has to be examined and evaluated in the first place. "Achieved objectives", "success" - those are already more nuanced, and I'm sure that editors with more experience in War List pages can come up with some better terms still. "Victory" is what you achieve when the other person surrenders (Grant vs. Lee; Japanese on the US Missouri) or ceases fire in a way that leaves no question about who won (WWI Armistice). As for sourcing, again I don't know much about the Kosovo conflict but more broadly, it is amusing to go back to the page history here and see how many entries have been switched from victory to defeat or to something in between, then back to victory (almost all the entries here are now labelled "Victory") all on the strength of one or another editor's view of the conflict and its outcome. Not a source in the mix - it's the epitome of OR. Wikipedia should offer better. JohnInDC (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your rant is misdirected at me. I don't believe I have participated in any of what you speak on this page. Rather I looked at the Kosovo War page and couldn't reconcile it with the listing/structure here. What I noticed in the talk page here, is that the list itself is not intended to be externally sourced, but derivative from the other pages--essentially a tabular list. I didn't create the framework, but tried to operate within it, adjusting this one entry where it fits in a gray area. Now for a rant of my own: One of the major problems I see repeatedly on Wikipedia is related articles being completely out of sync/counter to one another (mostly unintentionally...often with older pages based on single POV sources.) So editing one article often requires editing of another for consistency...sometimes a dozen. Therefore, I do see advantage in the structure used here, rather than turning it into a very messy reference list that will be continuously at odds with the other pages.

If you want to change the structure of this page, then propose it in a separate section. I don't disagree with elements of the criticism (esp. Vietnam and the Russian Revolution.) However, if you want to continue commenting on the particular edit I made, at least get up to speed on it and discuss that, rather than rant about the whole list's format. I should have just made the obvious edit without talk page comment. Lesson learned. Red Harvest (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not directing anything at you. You observed that "Kosovo War" seemed better described as a victory, and explained why that was the case. You were right. Under the black/white terminology employed by this page, "victory" makes more sense than what was there before. Your raising the issue however illuminated - for me anyhow - the nearly useless nature of the descriptor as used in this article, a shorthand summary that tells the reader virtually nothing about the conflict, the short term or long term implications of the outcome - any of that. Having perceived this shortcoming in the way the page is constructed, I commented on it. I'm sorry that I phrased it in such a way to make it seem personal or specific to your edit, and am open to any suggestion you may have for restructuring this discussion in a way that permits editors to address the issue I've raised, without having to retype it all! JohnInDC (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Your point is very valid--for example, the most recent Iraq War was unequivocally a "victory" for the U.S. military. But given the long-term implications of that "victory", it's quite a lot more complicated than that. So, to an extent, I agree with your concerns. However, this list seems to be designed not to examine the long-term geopolitical effects of a given war, but rather as a gauge of the United States military's relative success/failure in those wars. Because of this, those more detailed analyses are best left to (A) the bullet points describing the conflict (within reason) and (B) the individual articles about each war. Lithistman (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 American intervention in Iraq

I think it should be included. User:Lithistman removed the entry arguing that it was part of the previous conflict. I would argue that this is a new conflict, and that if it is part of the previous conflict than the listing for the previous conflict needs to be remarked as "ongoing". I thought I should bring these notions here for discussion. Juno (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I think you're right about this. The first conflict unequivocally produced victory. The outcome of this version (while an extension of the first in many respects) is yet to be decided. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Approval

Before I add certain articles, can I please get your approval if its okay with you. Ill list some articles and you can tell me if you consider them acceptable for this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_coalition_intervention_in_Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseConsider (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Those interventions are already in the article. If the articles for those interventions aren't yet included (I haven't checked yet), you're free to wikilink them without any special "approval" from the regular editors of the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

North Mali conflict

The Northern Mali Conflict should be on here. We have 50 troops there according to the page.

Two things, one: look a little closer at the flag and you will see that is the liberian flag as they are there as part of the african union mission, two: for future reference just click add new section so it adds the section at the bottom as the way the talk page usually functions is the new section is at the bottom and the oldest section is at the top. Thanks. - SantiLak (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What is a "War" for the purposes of this article?

I am interested in having a discussion for the purpose of this article on what really should be in this article and also be in Timeline of United States military operations and what should just stay there. For example I don't think that the any of the incidents in the gulf of sidra qualify as wars but Operation El Dorado Canyon does because it was an actual campaign and not just an incident with 2 migs or a conflict between the US navy and Libya that happened. The page as I see it does not serve the same purpose of the Timeline of United States military operations but as a listing for only wars and not just military operations. - SantiLak (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What I was thinking was that we should rename the page List of wars and conflicts involving the United States. Since theres always disagreement with what is a war. Usually, some conflicts are removed because the page is too long. If this is the case, make the article into sections. such as

List of Wars involving the U.S during the 18th century
List of wars involving the U.S during the 19th century
List of wars involving the U.S during the 20th cenutry
ect. I think you get my point. - User:PleaseConsider(talk)

• The article needs a lot of paring down. It should be limited only to military engagements that have been classified as "wars" by reliable sources. Not engagements, not incidents, WARS. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But expeditions aren't wars, why are they listed? - User:PleaseConsider(talk)

Because those are campaigns and they are allowed under the scope of the article that was laid out. Small incidents do not qualify for inclusion such as any of the incidents in the gulf of sidra qualify as wars but Operation El Dorado Canyon does because it was an actual campaign and not just an incident with 2 migs or a conflict between the US navy and Libya that happened. - SantiLak (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why was the American Anbar Campaign removed? It was an actual campaign as well. Yet it was removed because this article was apparently for wars, not campaigns. - User:PleaseConsider(talk)

It was part of the Iraq War and if a campaign is part of a war then it doesn't need to be included separately. I would actually support the removal of the separate intervention in iraq and syria additions and instead just leave the main intervention against ISIL as they are subsets of that war. - SantiLak (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, and intervention against ISIL are campaigns part of the War on Terror. Why can they be separated individually?. - User:PleaseConsider(talk)

Because those are wars, the anbar campaign is a campaign that is part of a war just like the Syria and Iraq interventions are campaigns that are part of a war. - SantiLak (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This list is a pathetic mess

Mainly due to the intransigent refusal of PleaseConsider to abide by THE ACTUAL TITLE OF THE LIST, it has become an utter mess. Perhaps another editor might like to step in and try to keep the list on point, but I've grown weary of it. I hate to think what it will look like when PC is simply allowed to ride roughshod on it, adding whatever skirmish, expedition, or whatever other event he decides belongs in a list of WARS, but editing Wikipedia is supposed to be an enjoyable experience, and dealing with PC at this article has made it not so. Good luck to anyone who tries to clean up this mess of a list. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only one complaining is you. "Wars" can last from a year, month, even a day. it doesn't matter if it was considered an expedition, campaign, or "incident", it should be on here. Unless it was a part of a bigger campaign, such as the Anbar campaign being part of the Iraq War, then I guess it shouldnt be listed. But if it was its own operation, just as Operation El Derado, it should be on here. I believe wars against Native Americans are just as important too. The Whiskey Rebellion was on here, so why should Shay's or Frie's Rebellion not be? The First Gulf of Sidra Incident was listed on here, why cant the second? If I were you, Id be proud of this list. Its accurate. The only debate that normally happen is the outcome of a "war" and if a military operation was a "war". Look at lists such as the list of Mexican wars, completely inaccurate. They consider riots wars, some of the wars we share are considered Victory there, when their considered Victory here. Their biased. - PleaseConsider

This rant is a perfect example of why this article is a mess. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the incidents in the gulf of sidra qualify for this article. They were small skirmishes that only happened when libyan aircraft attacked US combat air patrols. - SantiLak (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam War Victory/Withdrawal/Other

There has been significant dispute among a few editors over whether the end of the Vietnam War in this article should be listed as Defeat as listed in the Vietnam War article or as Withdrawal as the US did withdraw before the South's eventual defeat. Until this dispute finishes all editors should refrain from edit warring over this issue. Please leave your comments below. - SantiLak (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Opinion in Brief

Please list either Defeat or Withdrawal below and remember to bold it by using three apostrophes on each side. After listing either one, briefly describe your opinion of why in a few sentences and then sign. Discuss the issue in the discussion section. - SantiLak (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss the issue at hand below and don't forget to sign your posts. - SantiLak (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment, I've been invited to this discussion on a subject that I know nothing about but, given the invitation, I will share a simple truth. There are no winners in war. However, as far as the US is concerned I wouldn't go as far as defeat. In the nineteen years of this senseless conflict Vietnam did not invade Washington once. No US presidents were taken hostage and McDonalds was not forced to sell dishes such as Gỏi cuốn. Basically the States has an unbalanced advantage. They can plough in in nonsensical ways such as when they allowed the some of the World's most valuable items of world history to get looted in Iraq and yet, arguably, they can't "lose". The real failure though, is in diplomacy, and in human nature. The only winners are the arms companies and they are laughing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I invited all registered users that had edited recently which included you. I didn't want to appear to be canvassing so I invited you just in case. - SantiLak (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't an existential discussion on the merits of war. The fact is, the Vietnam war ended in a treaty, and w/withdrawal of American troops. Defeat for the South Vietnamese came a year later. Anything else is original research for the purposes of this article. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• LHM is right. Although South Vietnamese defeat came two years later but besides that, you're spot on. Lake4455 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously pruned this list

There was so much cruft that I went through and pruned this list severely. Before expanding it, a case needs to be made here as to why a given conflict should be included. One suggestion I have for further pruning is to create a list called List of Indian wars in the United States or something like that, and moving all the various conflagrations currently in the 19th century section of that list, and linking to one main article about the Indian wars on this list. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I can agree that the Indian Wars should be on a different list, especially since the US did not exactly exist at the time yet. Kirothereaper (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I also unbolded the outcomes, which I saw another user did for the wars involving the Philippines. The problem might be how it's presented, as the bold could be emphasizing one result over the other, which might be contributing to the edit wars. Also see my comment in the section above. Kirothereaper (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think unbolding the results or sticking with the actual articles might resolve this. Kirothereaper (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the conflicts which you have removed involved major combat operations by the United States militry and should be returned to this list, for example the Invasion of Grenada, the Invasion of Panama, the Banana Wars conflicts {in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and both campaigns in Nicaragua), the Somali Civil War, the Border War with mexico (the united states launched an invasion of Mexico i think that qualifies under any definition) ect.XavierGreen (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can agree that Grenada, Panama, Banana wars, Somali Civil War (But only the operation in the 90s), and the border war should be included. That being said, there are still a lot of conflicts that shouldn't be included. - SantiLak (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the results stick to the listed outcomes on main articles?

Should the outcomes stated in the main articles be listed? SantiLak agrees and so does Mikrobølgeovn: And they were also the ones who suggested it.

Indicate Support or Oppose, and please give reasons. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I SupportXavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support; anything else would compromise the consistency of Wikipedia. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support; this is by nature a derivative list and should be consistent with the articles that it is derived from. Red Harvest (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That being said, I have nothing against shortening down the outcomes if the ones listed in the main articles occupy too much space for a tiny table. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support I do not see why not. Just make sure that the outcomes are accurate and explain further if the end of a war if complex (like the War in Iraq for instance). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Support If there is any controversy, it seems better to address it where it will get the most attention from editors (the main article) rather than on a list. Agree with PointsofNoReturn that there may be cases where complexities in main article defy a one word summary. If that's the case, shortest possible summary of main article conclusion here, with reference to main article would seem like a good way to go.--Federalist51 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

DMZ Conflict

Again in the spirit of discussion and cooperation I would like to talk about the Korean DMZ Conflict. It was in no way at all a war. It was a conflict but just a series of low-level armed clashes between the DPRK and the ROK/US. Because it is just a small series of clashes and not a war, it does not belong in this article. - SantiLak (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi no-fly zones

In the interest of discussion and cooperation I would like to discuss the inclusion of the Iraqi no-fly zones in the article. This is clearly not a war as it is an enforcement of a no-fly zone and that is in no way an act of war or a declaration of war, it is the enforcement of a UN mandated no fly zone. They bombed several iraqi air-defense sites and did also engage iraqi aircraft that ignored the no-fly zone but that does not make it a war. There were other bombings of Iraq that don't fall under that conflict but were during that time such as during the disarmament ordeal and when Saddam tried to kill HW Bush in kuwait. It doesn't qualify as a war for the purpose of this article. - SantiLak (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was UN-mandated, it was still an act of war. DylanLacey (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the point, it isn't an act of war at all. It's a no fly zone, not a war. - SantiLak (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Defeat or withdrawal in general, discussion about Edit Warring

See also previous discussions: Archive 1#Wholesale changes of outcomes and Archive 1#False outcomes

There has been significant edit warring started on November 9, ever since the new User:Lake4455 came. This was never a problem before with the old layout. DylanLacey, you were the one that updated or changed the layout, tell us what you think about this. I believe the problem started on March 6 when the "defeats" were changed to "withdrawal"s. I think the result should be either "victory", "defeat", or in between, such as "stalemate / indecisive".

'Withdrawal' is not a goal, and therefore shouldn't be the result, but an outcome. Furthermore, it is already listed as an outcome, so there's no need to put it twice. It can also be misleading about any subsequent involvement after Vietnamization including the Fall of Saigon or boat people refugees. Again, withdrawal was not a goal, and the goals were not achieved. Kirothereaper (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

collapsed extra

There is a discussion about this issue in the section above. - SantiLak (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC) You did not address the entire issue. Also take a look at other RfC discussions for an example of how they comment. Kirothereaper (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) I have taken a look and participated in many other RFC's and that is how the general format almost always is. I don't know what other issue you are talking about, I am trying to formalize the discussion so the dispute can be ended once and for all and the edit warring will stop. - SantiLak (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, I just took a look at other RfC formats and you are right. I've removed my RFC template above for now. Lets discuss the whole issue outlined here above first, and then start a formal RfC. Kirothereaper (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that only outcomes of 'victory', 'defeat' and 'stalemate/indecisive' should be used. I believe 'withdrawal' is biased terminology as other "List of wars involving country X" articles use defeat rather than withdrawal. DylanLacey (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• If a false trichotomy of Victory/Defeat/Stalemate is insisted upon, then "withdrawals" should be changed to "stalemate", not "defeat", as withdrawal is not the same thing as defeat. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not a false trichotomy because if a country withdraws from the battlefield and fails all of its objectives, then it has been defeated. Stalemate wouldn't make sense in Vietnam, for example, because the outcome was a communist victory. DylanLacey (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

    When the U.S. withdrew, their objectives had not failed. South Vietnam still existed as a self-governing entity, and a peace accord was reached. Calling that war a "defeat" is nothing more than original research. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's a lost when your side and allies lose. The objectives failed, the peace accord were not successful. The U.S. was involved until 1975 in the Vietnam War and U.S. lives were still lost. You're also forgetting that the Second Indochina War also covers the U.S. involvement in the Cambodian Civil War and Laotian Civil War. And, if you actually read the Vietnamization policy, it referred to U.S. troops specifically in the ground combat role, but did not reject combat by the U.S. Air Force or support to South Vietnam, and the Mayaguez incident or Operation Frequent Wind are some of the many examples where US lives were continued to be lost after the accords. "Withdrawal" just does not cut it. Kirothereaper (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also dispute about the outcome of the Iraq War as well. See the archives for the argument on that. Kirothereaper (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling the Vietnam War anything but a defeat is naked militaristic nationalism. Everybody who is remotely credible on the subject knows it was a defeat. Only naked militaristic nationalism continues to proclaim that is was a victory in any way (The well known "US never lost a major battle in Vietnam", a no true scotsman phrase if ever there was one. No less than Col. David Hackworth put the screws to that lie in his book About Face. Here's a list of several major battles lost by the US: http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm ). Saying that we withdrew before the fall ignores and disrespects those servicemen who died between 1973 and 1975. Maybe you've heard of Charles McMahon? Darwin Lee Judge? It's a Defeat, it's not original research, no less than the military's favorite fighting journalist, Joe Galloway (We were Soldiers), calls it a defeat: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20gallowt.html This list, with its victory after victory in things that could not remotely be classified as wars (and incidentally, are not taught as "wars" by the US Army) looks like the article has been edited in bad faith by a pro-war nationalist in order to beef up the military victories of the US. DiesPhantom (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Continued

Although the user was never involved on this article, this list layout/format was originally created by User:Mikrobølgeovn. However, sometimes one bold word just does not describe a conflict. It may be better to just include of list of the outcomes, such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium does. Or, just simply list out only the wars itself like China, France, Thailand, Greece, Georgia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Bangladesh. Or include a detailed list of every campaign and expedition for every war like the Philippines does.

Mikrobølgeovn, tell us what you think about this. Kirothereaper (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• It ended in withdrawal for the United States and defeat for South Vietnam. The United States signed the peace accords with North Vietnam and withdrew from Vietnam in 1973. When the United States withdrew, South Vietnam was still standing. North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam after it captured Saigon in 1975. Lake4455 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You pretty much ignored the whole argument / conversation so far. Again, this is about "List of wars involving the United States", and the U.S. was still involved through 1975 in the Vietnam War. I'm glad that you finally decided to discuss though, so thank you for that. Kirothereaper (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. And I didn't ignore it. I just added why it is a withdrawal. Those were evacuation operations in 1975. Lake4455 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    The US's involvement with the war ended with their withdrawal. Having advisors and embassy staff in a country (South Vietnam) doesn't mean they were still involved in the war. The war ended. North Vietnam then overwhelmed South Vietnam in 1975, defeating that country and unifying Vietnam. Calling this a "defeat" for the US is nothing more than original research and POV-pushing. The US withdrew after a treaty. Period, full stop. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Since Kirothereaper asked for my opinion; I believe that 1) the outcomes stated in the main articles should be listed, that any discussions regarding them should be kept at main article discussion pages and 2) that people with clear nationalist agendas should be blocked much quicker. On a note, I think LHM misunderstands what original research is. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This list is its own separate entity, not dependent upon what consensus is at other articles. As for what OR is, I understand it quite well. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not separate entities, but a navigation tool on the same level as categories. Also, Wikipedia should be consistent - we can't have the lists state something different than the main articles do. If you believe the United States didn't lose in Vietnam, I encourage you to bring it up on Talk:Vietnam War - this is not the place. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

LHM, you are obviously not listening. Again, read what Vietnamization really means: it referred to U.S. troops specifically in the ground combat role, but did not reject combat by the U.S. Air Force or support to South Vietnam. You call this a withdraw for example? The simple fact is the U.S. was involved in 1975, so backing out doesn't cut it. There are two sides here: Anti-Communists and Communist. One side won. It's as simple as that. Kirothereaper (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a peace treaty. The war between NV and the US was over. That's just the fact of the matter. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the list contains dozens of conflicts and wars listed as "Victory" while also having a Treaty. Why is this one not subject to the same criteria? If you can have Victory with a Peace Treaty, then you can have Defeat with a Peace Treaty. The American Army failed at their objectives, realized that they could not win, so they signed a treaty and withdrew. The same as every Native Tribe we went to "War" with. Unless you don't think their loss and subsequent peace treaty was a defeat.DiesPhantom (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The peace accords were not successful, and the U.S. did not exactly leave after the accords. I think you misunderstand what Vietnamization really means. Kirothereaper (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The fighting between North Vietnam and the United States ended in 1973. Regarding the Mayaguez incident, if somebody attacks your ship, you have no choice but to defend your ship. The United States did evacuation operations in 1975 to evacuate Americans and South Vietnamese refugees from Vietnam. North Vietnam only defeated South Vietnam. When the United States was fighting alongside South Vietnam, South Vietnam did not fall. It was only two years after they withdrew did South Vietnam lost. Lake4455 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You're still not listening, and "withdraw" doesn't cut it, especially since U.S. lives were continued to be lost afterwards. The simple fact is that it was a communist victory. Like Mikrobølgeovn said, it's better to just stick with the outcomes in the main articles. No need to make it more complicated than it is. Kirothereaper (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a withdrawal. They weren't defeated. North Vietnam suffered more causalities. Nobody is arguing that North Vietnam didn't won. North Vietnam won against South Vietnam. This is about the result for the United States which was withdrawal. They didn't withdrew because they are getting defeated by the North Vietnamese military. Each country has their own result. (Example: World War II: Victory for the United Kingdom, Defeat for Japan) Lake4455 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Casualties are irrelevant. The Soviet Union had greater casualties than Germany, yet delivered the decisive blow against Germany. Japan and the UK had different outcomes as Japan was part of the Axis and the UK were part of the Allies. The US was on the same side as South Vietnam, so your example doesn't apply. DylanLacey (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was able to turn the tables around mainly because of the Russian Winter. Each war is unique. You misinterpreted my example. I talked about outcomes. The United States withdrew two years before the Vietnam War was over. North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam in 1975. Lake4455 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. It was a victory for the Communist side. The US was on the same side as South Vietnam. And shouldn't the Iraq War be a withdrawal also? Especially since many countries "withdrew" earlier than others? It depends on ALL you allies, and the US never stopped support for South Vietnam. Kirothereaper (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What DylanLacey said. The U.S. did not stop supporting South Vietnam and was still involved. The Communist side won. And also victory in the Iraq War is disputed, and shouldn't that also be a withdraw? It's better to stick to the main page. Kirothereaper (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the United States wanted South Vietnam to win but that's different than fighting alongside. Nobody is arguing that North Vietnam didn't won. The United States signed the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 and withdrew and North Vietnam didn't captured Saigon until 1975. It wasn't until after the United States left did North Vietnam won against South Vietnam. North Vietnam - Victory, South Vietnam - Defeat, United States - Withdrawal. Lake4455 (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We've already established that withdrawal doesn't cut it. Furthermore, it already says withdrawal, no need to list it twice. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We didn't established that withdrawal doesn't cut it. It says withdrawal in out list, not as the outcome. It doesn't matter if it uses the same word. Korean War uses "repelled" three times. Lake4455 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh yes, we've already provided you with extensive argument that the U.S. was still involved and not exactly withdrawn. The Anti-communist side lost. It already has withdraw in the outcome. The Korean War does not say the same thing twice, so your example doesn't apply. Kirothereaper (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LHM direct United States military involvement ended in Vietnam in 1973 with the Paris Peace Accords, and South Vietnam was not annexed until 1975, the U.S.A. supported the democratic RVN but the military confrontation from the U.S.A. was over for more than a year. The South had lost, not the United States, they were a third party in a civil war. In conclusion, I believe the status of the Vietnam war should be changed on this page, if your would like to discuss it further I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyyendon (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you just going to ignore the whole argument above so far? And the Iraq War should be a withdrawal also then, especially with many countries withdrawing early. Kirothereaper (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Official Recognition of Conflicts of the US

If we are going to list the conflicts the US has been involved in, it should be actual conflicts that the US Government was actually involved in, not every little insurgency and uprising anywhere in the world, and certainly not cases where one American working in a foreign country got a gang of Americans together to go beat up the locals so he could make money. Let's start here: http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf. DiesPhantom (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All of those conflicts are already listed, but the VA list does not even mention all of even the major conflicts, and some are not listed that had higher casualties than many of those listed on the page. For example the Philippine American War is not listed on the page and had well over 1000 combat deaths.74.105.130.90 (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The VA considers the Philippine American War as part of the Spanish American War, since it directly followed and was caused by the Battle of Manilla. Note the timeline, 1898-1902. DiesPhantom (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War Ending Date/Pakistan & Yemen

Just because ISAF lowered their flag today and changed their mission name doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of US troops in the country carrying out raids, airstrikes, combat missions, and training every day. They are involved in the war, so to all the SPA's and different IP's that have been changing it, discuss it, don't just keep on changing it after being reverted. - SantiLak (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The war in Afghanistan had a formal ending. The US are only there as advisors now. Occasional raids and operations will be conducted but so does the Somali Civil War and LRA Insurgency which you removed because of those reasons. PleaseConsider(talk)

Those conflicts are totally different and there is a discussion on the Afghan war talk page because a user preemptively moved it. Also the US involvement in Afghanistan is far more than the US involvement in Yemen or Pakistan and Somalia and the LRA, so seeing as that is your threshold for no more US involvement, I see no reason for the Yemen or Pakistan to even be in this article. - SantiLak (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope that you decide to participate in this TP discussion. In response to your last edit summary, it is very clear what they will be doing because they wrapped up full on combat operations before this and have been conducting what they say they will be doing in the future ever since they ended combat operations. Their operations that they have planned out and clearly laid out for the future are a large amount of advisers and special forces for counterterrorism operations. Your threshold for wars even going on from what you said is that it can't just be advisers and occasional raids which is what the Yemeni and Pakistani wars are and the afghan involvement is, as laid out before, far larger then the US involvement in either of those wars. - SantiLak (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a list of wars involving the United States. The Yemen and Pakistan campaigns belong here. PleaseConsider(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The US involvement in those wars is not enough to be in this list, as established before, advisors as well as occasional raids and strikes do not qualify a war for inclusion here. - SantiLak (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.192.74.21 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

War with north Korea

I dont want to do anything brash because I was scolded so much with my last edit, so I am wondering if anyone can add a section for

this page http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/01/kim-jong-un-reportedly-tells-north-korean-army-to-prepare-for-war-with-us/ Kim Jong Un reportedly tells North Korean army to 'prepare for war' with US — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianOlson0214 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a war, unless North Korea actually starts a war which the US is a part of then no. - SantiLak (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Complete Revision

Due to a fight I had noticed on a YouTube video's comment section, this article has been edited by one of the parties, and now has no Defeats for the US. I suggest a complete revision and makeover for no false information. The editor's claim was because America has "lost no wars" and the "Democrats quit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhowhatwhen (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

False Information

I've notice two false statements in this article. The first one is that the war in Iraq were a part of war on terror. Everyone knows there weren't any relations between terror and Iraq before the so called "Operation Iraqi Liberation", also known as "Ops OIL". There wasn't any WMD nor Terror. So the result should include the "Establishment of Terrors Organizations in Iraq".

The second false statement is that the Terror Organizations is listed as an ally with Iraq in the time of war, which also false. Everyone knows how terrors were fighting against the Iraqis. Including the 2 captured British that were disguised as Arab and Implanting explosives as a false flag to start a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis that were captured by the Iraqi police which then were rescued after the attack and killing of the police by the British Army on the station in Basra.

Google for alot of sources.

If no responses, the article will be corrected in 1 month from know.

Sherzad (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)¨¨

Well it was part of the war on terror because they were fighting terrorist organizations that were in Iraq, some of them were there after the invasion but they were fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the war there and that is part of the war on terror. On your second point, I don't know what you mean when you say the terror organization is listed as an ally of Iraq at the time of the war. The militant groups, including the terrorists that were fighting against the US, Iraqi, and other forces, have their section divided between them and Baathist Iraq to show that they were fighting the same enemy but not together. Also just to note it, if you end up changing anything you need to provide some reliable sources. - SantiLak (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys

you got centuries wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.14.176 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No we did not, the centuries are listed correctly. - SantiLak (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)