Talk:War against the Islamic State/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Anti-British users?

issue dealt with in various discussions. this is not the right article for all this detail. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small countries making token contributions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The classes and sectors

The UK has 6 aircraft in Cyprus and Australia has some troops in the UAE. We could have 2 coulombs, 1 on pledges and 1 on actual combatants over/in Iraq and Syria.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

Restructuring of Article

Article was restructured in line with the request Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

You already did - "RfC - Scope of Article" ... DocumentError (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Effectiveness Section

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

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

October Airstrikes (USDoD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we place this in the infobox saying something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great. DocumentError (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain and Italy role on the Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordanian soldier

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

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

suggestion

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

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

"Operation Inherent Resolve"

The Pentagon has now given the operations against ISIL a name, "Operation Inherent Resolve".Los Angeles Times, Fox News, Washington Post Wasn't sure where exactly to place this info since there are separate articles for US led operations in Iraq and Syria.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on this issue here. Contributions are welcome. - SantiLak (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PKK is not the same as the YPG. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So you don't think that Turkey who is publicly funding ISIS is a supporter?--Empire of War (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

NEW EDITS

Today, Britain announced it was deploying two "heavily armed" reaper drones to combat ISIL. I have made the necessary amendments to the UK's contribution in accordance with the statement. Here is the source of information: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11165898/Reaper-drones-sent-to-battle-Isil.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

My first issue is...

How is the strength infobox currently ordered?

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

The UK has deployed 8 Tornado GR4's.

Australia has deployed only 6 Super Hornets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, to summarise:

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

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

Now, my second issue is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A consensus was reached among other members to shun, report and then out vote modifiers who advocated ordering belligerents in terms of military contribution (that would put Britain above Australia - completely unacceptable). Funny how certain people who moderated this page chose also to ignore the edit warring users engaged in in their fight to keep Australia only second to the USA. I sympathise, considering Britain has conducted airstrikes and Australia hasn't. Plus, we added to our already diverse contribution of military assets (warship, sub etc.) with TWO heavily armed reaper drones today. Somehow though, 600 non-combatant troops always out trumps British naval, air and land contributions. I WILL be resurrecting this issue in the near future. VeryangryBrit (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue was raised many times and finally resolved with a final disposition here. - SantiLak (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the American-led intervention in Syria page

Regarding what sections dealing with the name/previously nameless American Operation should be called. Please take a look. Juno (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC Syrian Inclusion

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

I reverted an archive of this as the RfC is ongoing and the archive was premature. - SantiLak (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Brief Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the UK now intervening in Syria too?

The UK has begun flying RC-135 Rivet Joint sorties over Syria and will be sending in Reaper drones for surveillance too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29702456

Does this mean the UK is now intervening in both Iraq and Syria, like the United States?

The government has said it will not involve itself in Syria airstrikes unless a humanitarian catastrophe unfolds or if it is authorised in parliament.

TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that yes, this does qualify as intervening. Lets hold off on the Reapers until the rubber hits the road. Maybe include some sort of caveat about the parameters for intervention that the British government laid out for itself? Juno (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of marginal, but the criteria we have been using is military operations in or over Syria/Iraq, which this seems to meet. We started the article when the Americans were only doing surveillance. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer is yes, the UK is likely to be involved at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Canadian casualties?

Would it be wrong to put 2 Canadian soldiers in the causalities section after the shooting at the war memorial and the running over of another soldiers by people connected to radical Islam.62.30.178.235 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

They are connected to radical islam not necessarily ISIL. - SantiLak (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request move 4

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: Technical close it is less than a month since the last requested move on this page. While consensus can change it does not change within two weeks. This move includes a request to move Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on which there is a moratorium on moves until the 7 January 2015 -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State – I request that the "2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" be moved to "2014 military intervention against the Islamic State" on the grounds that the terrorist organization no longer refers to itself as the: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and ISIS. I also feel that the following articles should follow suit:

• 2014 ISIL beheading incidents → 2014 Islamic State beheading incidents
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (terrorist group)
• Turkish involvement in the 2014 military intervention against ISIL → Turkish involvement in the 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State

Also, should there be any other articles that have "ISIL", "ISIS", or use of such terms unabbreviated in the title, shall be replaced with simply "the Islamic State". JC · Talk · Contributions 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic lead is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Any attempt to rename should be located there. There has been significant debate in that area on this topic without any consensus. Consequently, Turkish involvement in the 2014 military intervention against ISIL should be moved to Turkish involvement in the 2014 military intervention against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 2014 ISIL beheading incidents to 2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading incidents.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support moving as per the precedents at WP:SHORTFORM. They show that it is common to use a shorter form of the original title for subtopic titles (examples: Georgia (U.S. state) for disambiguation purposes, but Georgia in the American Revolution, not Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Revolution and Georgia in the American Civil War, not Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War). In the examples it is clear from the context which "Georgia" it is. There is only one thing called "Islamic State" the U.S. is engaging in a 2014 military intervention against. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 07:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WPGA2345. And also given that the main RSs use that appellation now -- which per wp:commonname is what we follow. Even the NYT, which joined the others a month ago ... and reported that "many of the most prominent English-language news organizations use Islamic State — The Associated Press, Reuters, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC". wp:commonname states: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) ". Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Ordering of Factions in Infobox

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion in Brief

• Alphabetical - For purposes of consistency, and due to the fluid nature of the situation, an alphabetical listing will offer the most page stability and eliminate the need for future edits. DocumentError (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

To be more clear - I agree with Kudzu1 and SantiLak and disagree with any propose change. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. So do Kudzu1 and SantiLak support "America always in #1 spot" or "size of faction, by number of participating actors"? DocumentError (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well considering that was the final disposition as seen here when we dealt with the issue then yes. - SantiLak (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alphabetical per DocumentError, and to avoid endless disputes. Keep it simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

---

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.

Members of the Global Coalition against ISIL

Hello,

On the US Dept. of State website, a few more members of the coalition are cited, namely: the Arab League, Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kosovo (ahum...), Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the NATO (should be cited), New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Somalia (!), Taiwan, Turkey, and Ukraine.

How can this be added to the article while it is not specified how each "entity" participate to the effort?

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that an independent expert reference would be much more useful than a US state department website. Anyway, the list identifies countries who have "committed themselves to the goals of eliminating the threat posed by ISIL and have already contributed in various capacities to the effort to combat ISIL in Iraq, the region and beyond" rather than those taking part in the military intervention, and so many are out of scope of this article which is about the military intervention. NZ has not committed any forces, for instance, though its government is considering doing so. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles already include weapons and humanitarian supplies from some of these countries. Arab League is playing a coordination role and noted. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Found this excellent clickable graphic of the different countries contributions - note the graphic combines military action with arms supply (unlike our article) but gives details. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/10/isil-us-syria-airstrike-coalition-uae-saudi-2014101142731382476.html Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders in the infobox are excessive

I think that the number and range of commanders and leaders being listed for each country is somewhat excessive. The norm appears to be to list the national leader, defence minister (or equivalent), commander of the military, and the local theatre commander. This is over-complex, and not terribly helpful for readers (and miss-represents the nature of command structures for military forces). I'd suggest that this be limited to either national leaders or the theatre commanders. What do others think? Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the national leaders of the principle belligerents and one general from each other participant? Juno (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

agreed with Juno DocumentError (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. - SantiLak (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sections order: "American-led" & "Iranian-led intervention"

Iranian-led intervention occured before American-led intervention, yet its section is placed after that of the American-led intervention. --Z 10:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Consider size and scope. Legacypac (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Very much inclined to agree with the scope argument. (even though the Iranians probably have more men on the ground in Iraq than America does, its the American intervention that drives the bulk of the press coverage) Juno (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

KIA

The 2 Marines killed in Operation Inherent Resolve were both killed in noncombat incidents, they are listed as "KIA" (Killed in action) in the Casualties and losses section, per the KIA wiki article "The United States Department of Defense, ...says that those declared KIA need not have fired their weapons but have been killed due to hostile attack. KIAs do not come from incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes and other "non-hostile" events or terrorism.". Also KIFA means "killed in flight accident". This term is used when personnel are killed in an aerial mishap that did not result from hostile action.. --Phospheros (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I did make this correction earlier but someone reinserted it. I will make the correction again. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL Flag

What happened to the ISIL flag icon on different pages, it disappeared from the different intervention pages and any pages where its flag is used like that in an infobox. - SantiLak (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

The casulaties grow every day, especially for the Islamic State. So that should be updated every day. The casualties are not set at a fixed number, like 464. The casulaties in Syria are lower than in Iraq because the airstrikes began later. Cancina5645 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy figures without sources can not be introduced. If you have sources than great, add them, if not than please don't make any unsourced edits. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Many ongoing conflicts have casualties every day. Updates to the list should be made when source is available. PleaseConsider (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 has been doing a pretty good job at exactly that if you ask me. - SantiLak (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Moroccan participation

I added some days ago Morocco as another country joining airstrikes agains the IS. It seems that somebody erased it here the sources:

• Le Maroc envoie ses F-16 en Irak contre l'État islamique [1]
• Morocco and its F-16s join U.S. anti-ISIL coalition [2] (full article about the Moroccan contribution with 3 F-16 under US command)
• Morocco is to send F-16s to attack the militants under the US-led operation. [3]
• Morocco is the latest Arab nation to respond to an American appeal for more firepower, sending several F-16s to the fight. [4]

74.32.60.121 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

IS casualties

If, and only if you are taking the Kurdish, Syrian and Iraqi armed forces into account, then you really need to update your body count. I'm working in the Spanish article, and so far we have 3.082 Islamic State terrorists dead. As much aware as I am (if that's the correct way of pronouncing it), that it's not my place to tell you what to do, it's still an abysmal difference. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't really estimate the casualties in this case though. Lucasjohansson (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Id doesn't matter whether we're in Spanish, German, or Italian, the casualties are the same, and they are inflicted by the coalition, which contains every country. Every language should say in its own way the total casualties. The Casualties in Iraq are only from September, so it has to be higher by now. Cancina5645 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that they won't accept anyone not killed by US forces, whilst the current estimate of dead terrorists is at just under 4.000. I mean, there is already a page reserved for the US-led intervention, but this article should contemplate each and every party fighting against IS. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2014

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. There is a need to move this article as the current name does not have the necessary scope and we are already over a week into the new year. There seems to be a general consensus for this title, but I am not against another requested move in the near future either because the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant changes its title, or someone wants to discuss placing a date range into the title or removing the word "Military". PBS (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – 1. Per Wikipedia:PRECISE. You lose nothing by taking out the words "2014 military

2. 2014 is not needed. It would make no sense to subdivide this page by year as time goes on(i.e. 2015 intervention...). Moreover, the article talks about subjects that predate 2014. For example, the United States Arming the Free Syrian Army.

3. There is no reason for the word "military". The article itself is not currently confined to simply military intervention. See the section on Humanitarian intervention. Second, all these states are using other types of intervention (Diplomatic, Economic, informational) against ISIL. The article should also cover those aspects. Casprings (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would write anything about divine intervention, scrub that. I'd suggest Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. there can also be interventions through telecoms providers, restrictions on traded goods, border control efforts etc. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Military intervention against Daish(or Daʿish) and i think it is more correct. Now the title is very long, moreover the French and the Italian governments are starting to use the term "Daish" instead of "Islamic state". And i agree on taking out the word 2014. Barjimoa talk. — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Losing one word is better then none. That said, what do you gain by having "military" in the title? Also, "Da'ish" is less used, at least in the US. We should reflect what is used globally and wikipedia should be global in nature. That said, I am not sure if Da'ish is more often used in major english speaking countries. Casprings (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural comment. There is a moratorium on proposals and moves involving the second half of this title. This is shown in the notice at the top of the page. This move request can only involve the "2014 military intervention against" part of the title. Dekimasuよ! 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. The orginal request is in line however.Casprings (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, i have no problems on taking out also the word "military". Therefore the title Intervention against.... it is ok to me. barjimoa talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Counter-proposal: 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → 2014-2015 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – The intervention is still ongoing, and now is 2015.

References

Editor abcdef (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Counter-proposal: Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014-present) the intervention isn't ending in 2015 as far as we know so this would work. - SantiLak (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think you mean Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014–present). But if we go with the first option, it should be 2014–15 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, due to proper formatting style. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• But in any case, either one is fine with me, see 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and 2014–15 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for examples. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that 2014–present works better because even though this is the beginning of the year, having it say 2014-2015 makes it seem like at some point in 2015 it ended. I am going to suggest that for the other articles that have been moved as well because it can be kind of confusing to readers, maybe not us but to them. - SantiLak (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural close: It doesn't make sense to have two RMs open at the same time for the same article. Just discuss the suggestion in the discussion for the other RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have merged the two RM together. -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• After I looked things over for a bit, I've decided to go with an alternate version of the proposed 2014–15 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, due to the procedural formatting, and the implementation of it in most of the ongoing intervention articles, especially 2014–15 American-led intervention in Iraq. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think that those recent articles were moved to the wrong name. The interventions are still ongoing, they aren't ending in 2015, they are still ongoing as of today. By putting 2014-2015, it makes it seem that they ended in 2015 which is a problem. We understand that they didn't but readers might not and that is who we are trying to inform with these articles. - SantiLak (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the ending of the article title "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is subject to the name of the main article "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which is under a move moratorium until 6 January after which it is highly likely that a move request will be lodged for that page. If that happens and the page is moved it will be best if this page moves in line with that. -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Given the requirements of precision in the Article title policy it is clear that "American-led intervention in Iraq" needs to be qualified by date, but as there has never been any other "military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" what is the Article title policy reason for including a date qualification for this article? -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Scratch that, I have decided to go with the Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014–present) format, as well as similar formats for all of the corresponding articles. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  @LightandDark2000 see my comment above, you are proposing a dab extension, what does the proposed disambiguation extension disambiguate? -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (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.

Some points for editors to think about? maybe

I just had a glance at the article and also the page move. Some issues that might be worth thinking about (if you have heard it all before, just ignore this):

• Is the page move necessary? Does the average reader on Wikipedia wish to read yearly articles on military intervention in Syria and Iraq?
• Is the intervention purely a military one against this group?
• Is their an economic intervention in the area? ie. removing any sources of funding by private individuals from other sympathetic states. There is a recent wall street journal article on how US and Saudi are working together to drive oil prices down to hurt the group financially with the added benefit of hurting Russia as well. These are notable events which may warrant insertion into the article as part of the intervention.
• Is their a political intervention? The role of US and allies into encouraging Maliki to hand over power, to allow less controversy among sunnis when it came to intervention. The need to form a coalition with middle eastern arab partners to enable less rejection by mainstream Muslims.
• Is their an intervention in tackling the islamist narrative globally to reduce the allure of the group to Muslims? There is plenty here.
• Is their a digital intervention? A lot of editorials recently about the role of social media and how to counteract the misuse of the world wide web for islamist purposes.
• Is it necessary to have "Humanitarian efforts" as a subsection if this is about military intervention? I would imagine you could dedicate an entire article to humanitarian efforts. The red cross openly admit dealing with isil to ensure aid gets to people.
• What does the literature section have to do with this military intervention?

This is a multi-pronged intervention. I think if this article addressed these points, it would be very impressive in its scope. I will endevour to contribute in this spirit when time permits. Mbcap (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)