Talk:War against the Islamic State/Archive 1

American only?
With the British and French already or about to engage (humanitarian aid, arms, possible air strikes), does the article title need to be expanded? Or does the UK & French involvement belong in the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive only?Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of our RSs seem to be covering this as though it is an American conflict, which other allies are supporting. This seems to generally be the case, especially in the begining, but maybe the British effort has spun off to the point where it could be its own article? Juno (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The supporting countries are getting out of hand. When does a country get added to the infobox?


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

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

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Opinions here are split pretty much right down the middle, and both sides make good arguments. Extending the discussion wouldn't be useful considering this has received higher than average participation already and has lasted more than two weeks.  Calidum Talk To Me 04:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 American intervention in Iraq → 2014 United States intervention in Iraq – The term "American" can be controversial especially to Latin American countries. Most Wikipedia articles on US military actions use "United States" over "American". (examples: United States invasion of Panama, United States invasion of Iraq). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Gimelthedog (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - There is indeed some controversy over the use of "American." Mamyles (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME among others demands this. Red Slash 03:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 'American' is a common name for a group of continents in large swaths of the world. On the same Wikipedia Policy page, WP:PRECISION demands that ambiguity be removed. Mamyles (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a better title, avoids ambiguities that come with using demonyms in general -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – More appropriate a title for article. The current title evokes an "ethnic" thing. – Maurice Flesier (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The United States (of Mexico?) is no more precise than American is.  Everyone on the globe knows American means USA. The real issue is what does the article get called when the UK, Aussies, and maybe the French participate in strikes (cause they are all talking about it)Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While US is more official, American is the common name, with American Civil War and Spanish-American War being good examples. Juno (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - American is the common demonym in English and would be the name most international users understand in their native tongues outside of Spanish and Portuguese. In fact, this issue of US vs. American is typically only an issue in Latin America-understandably so-and usually isn't an issue elsewhere. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Av 5774 18:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Although most people would recognize it, it may be slightly offensive and Amerocentric. Also most other US military actions use the term "United States" or "US" and per WP:CONSISTENCY I think we should move it. Gimelthedog (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you check Timeline of United States military operations, which has links to all of the articles for other American military actions, they all say American save and United States only comes up in the name of the actual list, so WP:CONSISTENCY would call for the opposite. And having material be offensive to a small number of readers is not grounds for change according to WP:Offensive material. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 21 Av 5774 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I accept you're argument. --TIAYN (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. General consensus favors the use of "American" in article titles to refer to things related to the United States – see American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, Mexican–American War, Spanish–American War (certainly "US military actions"), and even American football and Americans. The continents of North and South America have seen other revolutions, and civil wars, and wars with Spain, and even other football codes, but nobody is confused. Demonyms are also frequently used in this sort of article. Here are a few examples:
 * French intervention in Mexico
 * French campaign in Egypt and Syria
 * French invasion of Russia
 * French conquest of Tunisia
 * British colonization of the Americas
 * British rule in Burma
 * Japanese occupation of the Philippines
 * Japanese occupation of Hong Kong
 * Japanese occupation of Malaya
 * Japanese invasion of French Indochina
 * German military administration in occupied France during World War II
 * German occupation of Estonia during World War II
 * Russian colonization of the Americas
 * Russian invasion of Manchuria
 * 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine
 * –Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support, WP:CRITERIA says: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. and the article is in  Category:Military operations involving the United States - relating to: Category:Military history of the United States, Category:Operations of United States government agencies and Category:Military of the United States.  People in the US are not the only Americans.  Americans lacks precision.  Gregkaye (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only provided example is the Panama one. The Iraq one redirects to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The rest of the articles cited all use American as the adjective and the only example you provided that uses United States as an adjective is the government agencies one whereas the others all use United States as a noun. Outside of Latin America, America generally does mean having to do with the United States unless one says "The Americas". That's just the way things are and the article should be named according to how things are and the naming of the article should be in accordance with reality. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 22 Av 5774 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:AT of course currently reads Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Common name is only one of the criteria, and even on this one the current title does not have a significant advantage; Both are in common use. The proposed title is more recognisable owing to being unambiguous, about equally concise (four syllables each), perhaps a very little less natural, more precise, and far more consistent to other articles and to categories. No contest. Andrewa (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per s reasoning. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong and most vehement oppose – This is absolutely absurd. "American" in the English language is unambiguous. There is no question as to what an English-speaker means when they say "American". This is the English Wikipedia, and we use English here. Adjectival forms are appropriate in this instance, as one can see by 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Are you going to change that one to "2014 Russian Federation intervention in Ukraine"? No! It doesn't make any sense, and it is improper grammar. The whims of foreign language speakers do not dictate how the English language works. Until we suddenly name Americans to "United States people", there will be no use of "United States" in the manner dictated by the above parties. WP:UCN dictates that we use "American". WP:NATURALNESS dictates that we use "American" (the natural way to refer to stuff about the United States is "American" in English). WP:CONCISE dictates the usage of "American" (it is shorter and instantly recognisable). The idea that this use of the word is "American-centric" is utterly absurd. Wikipedia is not meant for righting great wrongs. We are not here to make political statements about how "wrong" common usage is. No, we follow the sources and what people use. English-speakers use American, so too do we here. I also think that, per WP:TITLECHANGES, titles should only be changed if absolutely necessary and justified. This is absolutely not necessary, and is essentially frivolous POV pushing. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Adding a "Criticisms" section
The existing "Analysis" section is incapable of presenting the opposing analysis and opinions against US intervention in Iraq. I'm preparing a "Criticism" section and will merge the "Analysis" in it. Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would softly oppose the creation of a separate "Criticism" section, but I do very much agree that the "Analysis" section needs to contain more criticism. Juno (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your civil response. According to the amount of existing criticisms, we can have at least a subsection entitled "Criticisms". However I try to add some criticisms. Mhhossein (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Separate section for supporters?
What would you guys think about only leaving 2 (or 1 or 3) of the larger supporters of the US effort in the infobox and moving everything else down into the body of the article, with an explanation in the infobox, of course. I think that I recall seeing this approach in a few other conflicts. Juno (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, or have any other preferred way of sorting things, I think that I will move forward with this over the next few days. Juno (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with that. In fact it helps organize the infobox especially if it is cluttered. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Qasem Soleimani in the Commanders section
I remember some controversy regarding this and wanted to talk it out here. I think that our sources support inclusion, with him commanding some of the most significant forces in counrty. Would be feel aesthetically better if his name were less close to the President's? Juno (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to throw him back in, feel free to discuss here. Juno (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

James Foley Raid
The raid took place in Syria and it is mentioned in the article, in my opinion it should be in a different article as the topic is about the "intervention in Iraq"... not Syria, secondly the american soldier casualty included in the info-box is a part of the raid and not a part of the intervention itself. The raid took place in 2012 not 2014 and should be moved to a separate article, which I recommend Syrian Civil War or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as the raid took place in Syria during the height of the civil war as ISIS operated in Syria at the time --Acetotyce (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to see American fighting in Syria as part of the broader conflict in Iraq, but I could be wrong. It is possible that this article should be renamed something like "2014 American intervention in the Gulf" or "2014 American Gulf War". I believe that the raid took place this summer. Regardless of all of these things, there probably is enough coverage for a separate article on the raid itself. Juno (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm that sounds like a good idea, as right of now from what I have seen in the news, American intervention is likely to spread to Syria and the fact that there was a raid inside Syria makes me feel this article should be renamed to one of the two options you pointed above. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove wounded American?
I noticed that this article added the wounded American to the casualty list once the story of the raid in Syria was leaked. However, while that raid involved the same group the intervention in Iraq targeted (the IS) I feel like it is still outside the scope of this article, which as the title says, is the Iraqi intervention. If American airstrikes later occur in Syria and this article is broadened to include both countries, or a separate one on the Syrian campaign is written, then it would be fair to include this casualty of the mission in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.228.200 (User talk:98.164.228.200 • Special:Contributions/98.164.228.200) 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I generally view American actions in Syria as part of the same conflict. Given, that probably does reflect a weakness in the current naming and it should probably shift to something like "2014 American intervention in the Gulf" or "2014 American Gulf War". It is also worth noting that news of the actions in Syria was not leaked, but spread by the Obama administration itself. Juno (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose if renamed - I agree with on this one, if the article is renamed then there is no need to remove the wounded american soldier casualty but if there is no rename I may see it differently. --Acetotyce (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Syria is not in the Gulf region. If the Americans make a more concerted effort in Syria I suggest renaming the article to 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 American intervention in Iraq → 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria – It is now clear that the U.S. has been active militarily in both Iraq and Syria, this includes Reconnaissance missions and even a raid to rescue James Foley (which didn't succeed). To keep the article "2014 American intervention in Iraq" would be quite problematic as a large portion of this article seems to show content related to America militarily involved in Syria. There are many sources to support my reasoning, most of which are listed on the article and a few linked here in this template. Acetotyce (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree on specifics, largely agree on principle I think that these two American interventions (Iraq and Syria) and generally coming to be seen as part of a single effort on behalf of the United States. I want to discuss this idea more and try to generate different naming possibilities. While I do agree, in principle that we are dealing with a single overarching conflict we would have to be very careful to separate the two campaigns. Many European nations have joined the American effort in Iraq, to the best of my knowledge none of them are on-board with the Syrian campaign. Some of the local alliances are also inverted, depending on which side of the boarder one is on. Juno (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is indeed true from the way things are playing out now, it seems that more support is likely in the not so distant future. But on the grand scale of things the US appears to be taking the lead in the military support role with support to Peshmerga, PKK and other groups going against ISIL, not to forget that along with airstrikes, there is also weapon supply too. Whereas the other supporters are closely tied to Humanitarian aid and some military aid. But that is what it is as of now, and is most likely to change eventually as this conflict is still ongoing and things will keep on developing as time progresses. My take is the next group to support as much of an extent as what America supports will be the UK but in my perspective it will be well coordinated both in Iraq and Syria. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it is highly likely that other western countries will follow the US into Syria, so far they have not. We cannot say that, for instance, "The UK has contributed to American efforts in X conflict", because so far they've only committed to the Iraq campaign. Juno (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The border in Anbar between Syria and Iraq is no longer well-defined. With Syria testing it's limits by bombing a border town in Iraq and the fact that militants and vehicles can easily pass through IS checkpoints, I view this conflict as happening in one large battlefield (Greater Syria) instead of two soverign terroritories.  ~Technophant (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Because this conflict is still ongoing there is still things bound to change rapidly, especially with the recent execution of the second hostage. This conflict is bound to expand into Syria, and more countries will join in. Perhaps that's the explanation for the lack of votes here... --Acetotyce (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While I too believe that it is outrageously likely that American troops will roll over the boarder into Syria in greater numbers (or possibly have done so already, in secret) we cannot write that they have without RSs stating so. Juno (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom. It only makes sense. ~Technophant (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed my support as there is now 2014 American operations in Syria. This would have to be a merge discussion not a rename discussion.~Technophant (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah good catch! It seems that we may not need this RFPM in such an event. I will consider withdrawing this request and replacing it with a merge request instead when I have time tomorrow. The creation of 2014 American operations in Syria is a better variant but that article will look better with the content from here. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


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

Editor AndrewsDarlene1
Indefinitely blocked now as a sockpuppet of User:Russavia. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany decided to ship weapons
Please update the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.135.201.135 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Extensive list of countries involved
There is a list of countries that have become involved in the fight against the Islamic State; approximately 25 are identified in the article. I don't know if each one should be added to the infobox. Here is the link David O. Johnson (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen some infoboxes where extensive lists are included, but collapsed. Would that be an option here? Juno (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Iraq/Iran/Shiite Militias as belligerents
They're fighting just as the Peshmerga are, I think it would make sense to include them as "belligerents", rather than "supporters". Juno (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Acetotyce (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 American intervention in Syria
There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. However, there does not seem to be a consensus to do this. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes likely soon to happen there needs to be a place to put these new events. I propose creating this new draft article (Draft:2014 American intervention in Syria) and reusing the infobox from this page. OR, we since there's so much overlap between these two conflicts and a porous border between these two conflicts it may serve editors and readers best to widen the scope of this article and rename it 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria.~Technophant (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that there isn't consensus for a rename. With a new potential coalition on its way, I believe that America wont be pulling those airstrikes alone. We should suggest a name that isn't aimed directly at American involvement as more countries are opting in to combat ISIS --Acetotyce (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2014 international intervention in Iraq in Syria could be an appropite title if this happens. With the rate at which things are changing it's hard to keep up with it all.~Technophant (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, its all happening so fast but the whole scenario is very complex as US involvement in Syria means the US is dragging themselves into a multi-fronted war. At the moment it appears to be an American led battle but things are going to change in the future. Time will tell and in time we will decide on a name. I will develop a list in the coming weeks and post them here. It all depends on how this plays out. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rename Article
I propose renaming this article, it is clear ISIS is waging war both in Iraq and Syria, I believe we should rename it to the "War on ISIS"--Empire of War (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The name "War on ISIS" seems a bit vague, lets wait till more of this situation develops and then we can decide on what an appropriate rename would be. I will be coming up with a list of possible names to share here in the coming week, thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think it is appropriate to keep it named as 2014 American intervention in Iraq, there are now many non-American countries helping fight ISIS, so not exactly an "American Intervention".--Empire of War (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed on the "wait and see" approach. I agree with the assumption that the article will likely need to be changed at some point in the next few weeks. Agree that the word "American" probably needs to go. At this point, I would advocate Second Iraq War. Juno (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Second Iraq War sounds the most plausible, however it is also vague since ISIS is waging war in Syria, and into Lebanon. Essentially it's a borderless conflict, and thus shouldn't be restricted to just Iraq although the base of the fighting will most likely occur there.--Empire of War (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's go with Second Iraq War for now with the knowledge that we will likely have to change it later? Americans will likely be on the ground in Syria and Lebanon as part of the this conflict but they're not there in numbers, as part of a unified command yet. Second Iraq War would take care of the American-centric nature of the article.
 * I know we're not supposed to make decisions based on assumptions, but it is also a a near certainty that this fighting will last part December and at some point the "2014" in the title will also be superfluous. "Second Iraq War" would take care of that too. Juno (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But no reliable sources are calling it the Second Iraq War. "War on ISIL" makes a lot of sense because not only is this a military conflict in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon but it involves anti-terrorism efforts around the world (ie Aussie ISIL arrests today). I am not opposed to the current title, but events are overtaking the title now. Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I'd support "Second Iraq War" if someone could provide evidence of what the "first" Iraq War was and that there weren't any wars between them. Here's a list of suggestions. Second, this is about military intervention coming (currently) the United States and France. The war has been going on between the Iraqi army and IS before the intervention. Third, as pointed out above, no original research. Article's title must reflect the sources even if someone's 'common sense' says otherwise. Many parts of this article are a mess. Best not complicate it further. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is now multiple nations involved and France is conducting airstrikes, I would at least change the title to something like 2014 intervention in Iraq, 2014 International intervention in Iraq or the more broad 2014 International attacks on IS/ISIS/whatever. I think the wait and see stopped with the French now.-- Zfigueroa  ( talk  ) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree to change the name to 2014 intervention in Iraq, 2014 Western intervention in Iraq (Distinction with Daesh supports) or 2014 Franco-American intervention in Iraq--Monsieur Fou (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


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

This article was moved to 2014 military intervention against ISIS with this diff. Are we good with this? What should become of 2014 American intervention in Syria? Merge here?~Technophant (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We've started a productive discussion on it in Talk:2014 American intervention in Syria, I think we should continue the discussion there. SantiLak (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very good with the move to 2014 military intervention against ISISLegacypac (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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


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

Military aid
An odd rationale for removing the sourced bit. The article explicitly mentions the following: "Shalamanov does not consider the conflict in Ukraine to be the only short-term threat for Bulgarian national security, which is why our country is sending armaments to the opponents of Islamic State....According to him, the events in northern Iraq and Syria represent a growing risk that threatents our national interests. Shalamanov adds that this is an opinion that is shared among EU and NATO members."

How is this not mentioning "current" military aid ? He basically confirms that Bulgaria is sending weapons to anti-IS factions (likely the Iraqi Army) in this very conflict. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no credible source, in English, that mentions that Bulgaria is directly giving military aid in the current intervention. Unless you can provide a credible English source, it doesn't seem like it should be on the list of major countries actually currently contributing aid and advisers to the operation. Please do not undo any reverts until there is a source that speaks of a current and direct military support for the operation. If anything, it would make sense to put it under "Humanitarian Support - With Military". But then again, there is no credible source in English to confirm the claims. It also falls under the "Unnamed Eastern European Countries" category as well. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And if a credible source in English does not publish the interview, we'll just skip that bit ? How informative. This is the most credible Bulgarian-language online media outlet drawing information from the Defence Minister of the country, who directly states that Bulgaria is shipping weapons and not "planning" to do so. Although not part of the source, it is very possible that the armaments are armoured vehicles and not just small arms - a contract for 150 APCs was signed in 2012 between the Iraqi Ministry of Defence and Bulgarian TEREM, yet only one had been delivered by 2013. There is no mention of humanitarian aid whatsoever, so it could not fall under that category. I will re-add the source with an English translation. Non-English sources are allowed, so I don't see what the problem here is. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Not all actions against ISIS are interventions. An intervention is, per Merriam-Webster, an act of involvement "in something (such as a conflict) in order to have an influence on what happens". Continuous domestic actions which have been taken undertaken against the group are not interventions, but part of the Syrian Civil War which spilled over into Iraq.
 * I too have objections with "against ISIS". It assumes that the reader knows what ISIS (acronym which I also would object to) is. It's also clumsy.
 * As for third point, since not all interventions are military, and this one is not a police intervention, or diplomatic intervention etc., the modifier "military" is not superfluous.
 * Problems like this arise from the fact that the article is about an ongoing event and the situation changes from day to day. I believe the best approach is to have the title contain only general information until it becomes part of history, and not news. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since US is attacking multiple groups inside Syria to defend Iraq (latest spin), can we please retitle to Iraq War III: The Search for Strategy? Hcobb (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we can retitle it to Let's all insert our POV into article title's. SantiLak (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Australia and Canada
Canada and Australia promised to join USA and France in Iraq but they have not carried out any military operation. Why are they mentioned as belligerents in the infobox?--Monsieur Fou (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do they have troops on the ground? To me, that seems to be the line from supporter to belligerent. Juno (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they should be removed. DocumentError (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Canada has Special Forces on the ground in Iraq, has plans flying in arms and is looking at other ways to help. The Aussies have planes in region getting ready to strike, have cargo planes flying in weapons, and said they are sending ground troops. Ya, they are not big boys like the USA but they are playing a direct military role. The troops on the ground line excludes the USA too. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The news says that there are 1,800 American troops on the ground + a few thousand contractors. No matter what our politicians say, we're in. Juno (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed Juno, I should have said "direct combat troops". Canada and the US have advisors on the ground, so should both be in or both out-pick your standard.Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, "advisers". The Iranians are calling their guys advisers too, just like we called our guys in Vietnam. Juno (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Date intervention started
The infobox indicates that the intervention started on June 16th, but I don't see any sources for that date in the article.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If memory serves me correctly, I believe that that was the day that troops were first deployed? Juno (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikipedia should NOT promote this terrorist organization like we currently are.--Empire of War (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A fragment of your first sentence should have answered your question: "I understand Wikipedia should be an unbiased source." Also wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for opinion and while ISIS is a terrible organization, wikipedia is needs to be maintained as an unbiased source. SantiLak (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect what you're saying but do you not agree we should "bend" the rules this once? "ISIS" uses social media heavily, should we not do the same to weaken it's legitimacy?--Empire of War (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social media account, if you want to "degrade" them then use Twitter or something else. If we bent the rules ever then we would be giving up on the principles of wikipedia. SantiLak (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So we should just continue with articles that legitimize "ISIS" as a state?--Empire of War (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article's don't legitimize ISIS as a state. They make clear that it is a terrorist organization that calls itself the Islamic State. SantiLak (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I very respectfully disagree. First: Wikipedia should never follow the "American government's plan" or - for that matter - any goverment's plan. Second: terms like Daesh and Takfiri are essentially meaningless to most English speakers and this is English WP. Third: There is no ideological litmus test for editing. If Islamic State soldiers wanted to contribute to Wikipedia they, of course, are welcome to do so (provided they follow WP:COI policies), just like U.S. or British soldiers and veterans contribute to WP. DocumentError (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If Islamic State soldiers wanted to contribute to Wikipedia they, of course, are welcome to do so - What a disgusting statement.--Empire of War (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point which is that anyone is free to edit wikipedia as long as they follow wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to fight their political battles as much as we might personally dislike ISIS. SantiLak (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your disgust, however, what I said is simply a factual statement. There is no WP policy against soldiers from any state - de jure or de facto - editing Wikipedia. Islamic State soldiers, United States soldiers, Bolivian soldiers, French soldiers ... all are welcome to edit WP. If you would like to see this policy changed, you can propose it on the Talk page for WP:EDIT and, if there is consensus, a new policy prohibiting edits by IS fighters can be adopted. DocumentError (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * France announced today it will start referring to "ISIS" as Daesh, so it is not just Arab states who are using this term. And what about the infobox, why is it controversial to put Arab states in front of Western nations?--Empire of War (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't look to the French government for style guidance. The most common terms used in RS are the terms used here. As for putting Arab states in front of western nations, I am the editor who moved the Syria flag icon above the U.S. so you won't get any argument from me on that point. In terms of the other Arab states (e.g. Bahrain, et. al.); I think they're fine where they're at as the order relates to committal of forces. DocumentError (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Putting Britain above Australia
I'm not sure why people keep putting Britain above Australia. To my knowledge Britain is providing about 6 warplanes, reconnaissance, cargo support and a SAS squad, a Royal Navy destroyer that is protecting the US carrier group and a nuclear submarine in the region. Compared to Australia's 600 troops, one SASR contingent, 8 Warplanes, and reconnaissance and cargo support.--Empire of War (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the UK and I believe that they should not be removed. I have placed them below France and Australia. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well someone keeps placing them above France and Australia??--Empire of War (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. Well remember all Syrian civil war related articles are under sanctions and revert rules are strictly WP:1RR only so if its something small just let it be. If the orders get moved then a discussion here will be implemented for consensus with that issue, nobody has changed it yet. --Acetotyce  (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Empire of War - the UK should be below Australia. The page is now protected so it ain't moving for awhile, so that's settled. When we resume editing I would like to suggest Iran and Hezbollah be moved above the United States. DocumentError (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In the part "Strength" of the table, you have not put France below Australia, you have just erased it ! Before, there was written 6 Rafale aircrafts + cargo aircrafts (provinding weapons and humanitarian aids). Can't you put it back please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.21.1 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete France from the "strength" infobox, can you send me a link of troop numbers and aircraft they are sending and I'll put it back in, thanks--Empire of War (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here you have an article from French Magazine Le Point.

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

Who are the ground partners in the American-led intervention
Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Iraqi Kurds - for sure partnered with Americans
 * PKK (Turkey Kurds)- are helping the Iraqi kurds, but not allied with the Americans - should exclude?
 * Iranian Kurds - helping Iraqi Kurds, but not partnered with US
 * Iraqi Army - for sure partnered with Americans
 * Shiite Militias - helping the Iraqi army, but not allied with Americans as far as I can tell?
 * Iranians, Russians, Syrian Govt - not partnered with Americans for sure, and we agreed to exclude them
 * I don't believe Syrian gov should be included as their participation is part of Syrian civil war and not the intervention. Iran and Russia on the other hand yes but not Syria. SantiLak (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So sorry - wrong talk page - too many similar articles open. Disregard my comments that belonged in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Iraq Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Khorasan", Nusra
This coalition is not only targeting IS, but also the Nusra Front. This means that both the title and the article needs changes. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/24/world/meast/isis-al-nusra-khorasan-difference/ http://www.thedailystar.net/doubts-cast-over-us-strike-on-khorasan-43296 FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think that the article should close with "in Iraq" rather than "against ISIS". Juno (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the US targeted Al Qaeda affiliates (nothing new) in Syria (new location). The US was very clear that the Arab partners were not involved in that strike. This article is about attacking ISIS and the other strikes are at best a passing statement for context here. ISIS and Al Qaeda are opposed to each other, not on the same side. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is only about IS specifically because no one knew anyone else had been targeted until now. And no, ISIS and al Qaeda are not opposed to each other at all, Zawahiri has advised IS not to attack other Jihadi groups, but that's about it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Under international reactions, could an admin please consider adding the following text: Thanks in advance for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * – The Israeli government provided satellite imagery and intelligence about Western volunteers fighting for Islamic State to support the US-led campaign, with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon stating "In order to stop and overcome the Islamic State, we have learnt since 9/11 that there must be cooperation between intelligence agencies from across the free world."
 * Oppose - Opposition to ISIS does not necessarily portend support for the intervention. Ecuador opposes the intervention but no one is claiming Ecuador is an ally of ISIS. We can't assume that Israel supports the intervention on the basis of it providing intelligence about western volunteers. DocumentError (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support-ish Israel gave the western coalition intelligence that they may have used in their strikes. I don't think it should be included in the international reactions but somewhere in the infobox might work. SantiLak (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "may have been used" may work on Maybepedia DocumentError (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They provided them with intelligence and that is important enough to warrant a mention in the infobox as providing military aid. I don't have access to the CENTCOM computers so I unfortunately I can't say whether their intelligence led to strikes but they did provide intelligence and that is military support. SantiLak (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the source, the intel appears to be of a law enforcement, versus military, nature. DocumentError (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Israel has provided satellite imagery and other intelligence in support of the U.S.-led aerial campaign against Islamic State in Iraq." Sounds like military intelligence. Satellite imagery isn't usually used in a law enforcement capacity in a war zone. SantiLak (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Israel's Defense Ministry neither confirmed nor denied involvement in any international efforts against the militant group." - We need more than one anonymous source to add a nation to the "International Response" section, especially when the nation's government refuses to commit either way. You can't proxy a response through an anonymous source. DocumentError (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for them to be added to the international response but instead to the infobox section for countries providing aid. Also i'm pretty sure Reuters is not suddenly an unreliable source. SantiLak (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reuters itself is RS, however, the article reports two possibilities: (a) Israel has no position [Foreign Ministry], (b) Israel is providing aid [unnamed person from third party country]. The information is not definitive enough to add Israel. DocumentError (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

If you would like to check the translation yourself, try using Google Chrome or Google Translate.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 02:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose With appreciation for ZiaLater's suggestion, Diario Las Américas is an anti-Castro/anti-Chavista Miami-based advocacy outlet that fails RS. However, I would change my opinion to Support if he has an alternate source. Support DocumentError (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that it wasn't reliable so I apologize.
 * Try CNN Espanol:
 * "The president said that while his government condemns terrorism, the international community should focus on combating Ebola "instead of bombing villages in Gaza, Iraq and Syria." "We Western journalists murder hurts, but it hurts like dead from other regions?" He asked."Instead of being bombarded, we must make a covenant of peace against terrorism," he said, explaining that the UN "must redundarse to find total peace."
 * Hopefully this is more acceptable DocumentError!-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 08:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * that seems fine DocumentError (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help DocumentError. Hopefully it'll be up soon. Maybe we could put the countries in alphabetical order as well?-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Opinion in Brief

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

Turkey
Turkey has been accidently bombed by ISIS, and is going to vote as to whether or not to invade. Shouldn't here be a section about it? Also who did the edit block?Ericl (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah.90.244.94.220 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The community was forced to terminate editing due to persistent, uncooperative edits by unregistered IP editors. DocumentError (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then how do us registered IP editors make cooperative edits? There are lesser sanctions that have been imposed on many many articles in the past, why not this one?Ericl (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure "the community" is actually DocumentError initiating the request and according to him for another reason. Thus the lock appears to be initiated under false pretenses. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkey's parliament OKs military force
According to CNN, "The Turkish parliament on Thursday voted 298-98 to authorize military force against ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq". Also, they had already deployed special forces into Syria in March to defend the tomb of Suleyman Shah. (Source: CNN)-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's according to everybody. When exactly they'll do anything else about the crisis is unknown.Ericl (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We should wait to see their action and then we could maybe have an admin add them here. SantiLak (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, just adding this source as an introduction to something we can add if they do begin using military force.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I reiterate my demand for the following modification to be made, I speak for other users also with this post. United Kingdom: Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.
 * 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
 * 8 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft
 * 1 Type 45 destroyer
 * 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
 * 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

Please do this website justice. As even some bright spark has edited this page's sister page stating the correct British contribution. The same should be done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryangryBrit (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, this stuff really does need adding. To say the UK doesn't have 8 Tornado's involved just because they haven't all been used for airstrikes (yet) is just a desperate argument to make. Why would the aircraft be there if they weren't to be used in operations? I find the argument pretty biased too, considering the full contributions of Australia, Denmark and Belgium are listed, yet NONE of those countries have even contributed a single airstrike. The UK has made FOUR.


 * In addition to the British contributions listed above, I'd also request:
 * 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants) - used to supply Kurdish forces with weapons and airlift for refugees (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/498583/Chinook-helicopters-join-efforts-to-save-refugees-facing-slaughter-in-Iraq) TheArmchairSoldier (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

 * Support All nations and nation-equivalent actors should be included in an article titled "2014 military intervention against ISIS." To include only U.S.-allied nations would be to engage in WP:CSB and create an article that deals primarily with the United States-perspective and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. DocumentError (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The Syrian regime forces should not be included in the article. SantiLak (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: same as User:SantiLak, and this RfC was started because DocumentError came up against strong consensus User: David O. Johnson, User: SantiLak User: Hello32020 against his unilateral dramatic shift in the focus of the article, a shift that (from comments above) seems deeply politically motivated. This article is not about the Syrian Civil War, it is about the multinational (in coordination with the USA) efforts against ISIS. Syria Govt and other local players can't intervene in their own country, that is non-sense. And the intervention against ISIS is across Iraq and Syria both. Iraqi Army and Kurds are ground troop partners, not Syrian Army.Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note - the RfC was opened because there were 3 editors who had posted "Support" and 3 editors who had posted "Oppose" in the parallel discussion. "50/50" ≠ "strong consensus." I recommend you attempt to police these kind of exaggerations; they may be looked upon as obfuscations and campaigning by editors coming here from the RfC bot. I will ask you once to voluntarily place a strike-through in your comment from the words "and" through the word "against." Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The intervention has been led by the United States. It is entirely distinct from any of the actions that the Syrian regime has taken against ISIS. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There conflict between the SAA and IS are covered in other Syrian Civil War articles. Gazkthul (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There was strong consensus about what the article was about for some weeks - until DocumentError tried to change the scope tonight. Not like the Syrian Army just started fighting here, they were left out by every editor who came around because they are not part of the scope of the article. DocumentError tagged the people who you expect will support his position in the orig discussion, and it is appropriate to name the editors who already commented so they can comment again on this Rfc Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC).
 * I realize you're (relatively) new here, but we don't do WP:PA in RfCs. Wikipedia is not an American talk radio show. If you would like to delete the above comment I'm fine if you delete this one as well. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution and goodwill - and to dispel the WP:CONSPIRACY you've raised - I am deleting the GF notificaiton I posted in the parallel thread. DocumentError (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to DocumentError: I am NOT new to WP or other wiki projects, so don't belittle me. I was not doing a PA, I was pointing to the logic you used for your edits. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The present title is "2014 military intervention against ISIS". The Syrians (and the Iranians, and the Russians) are militarily intervening against ISIS. As long as that title stays there is no reason that their efforts would be excluded. In the context of the broader anti-ISIS conflict, the press includes them. Juno (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - The intermittent conflict between the Syrian Arab Republic, ISIS, and the other rebels is covered in the Syrian Civil War article and is supported by WP:RS, while the Syrian Arab Republic's involvement in the recent intervention in Syria is not supported by WP:RS. (I can look up specific instances if needed, but there is no reliable sources discussing the Syrian Arab Republic fighting ISIS in news articles discussing the recent US-Coalition airstrikes as far as I have seen.) Changing the scope of the article to fit the title is WP:OR in regards to what is part of the recent conflict. If the title needs greater specificity that is an independent issue that DocumentError or anyone else can start a discussion on on this talk page. However, I believe the current title is satisfactory as it only matters that other reliable sources have described the U.S. and coalition's recent attacks as a military intervention against ISIS despite ISIS being in conflict with other parties as well. Hello32020  (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Syria is covered as a party to this conflict all the time:, , , and . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno (talk • contribs) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The Syrian government is helping the coalition fight ISIS even if the Coalition does not acknowledge it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - A no-brainer, per the article's title. Think of the reader. If this is to cover the US intervention only, change the article's name to 2014 U.S. military intervention against ISIS -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It would seem to me that the Military intervention against ISIS would not include Syria. Syrian action or rather that of the Syrian Government seems more directly related to the Syrian Civil War. I would limit Syria related contributions to background information and to where they have coordinated or been apart of this Military intervention started by outside actors. This is not about the Syrian Civil War. ISIS is an actor in the Syrian Civil War.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - the title speaks volumes. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think Military Intervention implies those coming from abroad to intervene in the conflict. The Syrian forces are already involved in the conflict itself, so its not like they are 'intervening'. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (you may engage in more elaborate discussion here, if desired)
On a side note, what do you mean by US regime, regime suggests an authoritarian system of government which is why it has been used to refer to Assad's government but I hardly think it should be used to refer to the US gov. SantiLak (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not get into a comparative political discussion here. Let's keep this focused on the RfC. DocumentError (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Here is how I currently see things. There are three conflicts that are related:
 * Conflict #1: (what this article needs to be about) There is a (yet officially unnamed) "big coalition" consisting of US+Canada+Aust+UK+French+Bahrain+Jordon+UAE+Qatar+KSA+Neth+(ground partners)+Kurds(various versions)+Iraqi Army+whoever the outside countries decide to arm in Syria that are militarily attacking ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The big coalition is supported by a bunch more countries supplying arms and humanitarian aid. It is all these big coalition players vs ISIS. Conflict #1 has the Iraqi insurgency and the Syrian Civil War as a backdrop/partial cause.
 * Conflict #2 Syrian Civil War (3+years running), with a ridiculous number of players. Countries like Russia and Iran with Assad's Syrian army and entities like Al Qaeda are outside the big coalition (even enemies of it). These players ARE IN or impacting the Syrian Civil War and may oppose ISIS too, but within the context of the Syrian Civil War only. Conflict #1 article should only mention these outside players as they impact Conflict #1.
 * Conflict #3 Iraqi Insurgency which has pretty much been swallowed by Conflict #1 recently. Even the Kurd vs Central Govt thing is on hold now.
 * The whole thing is a big mess and ever changing, but this is how I think history will see it based on what we know today.Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the Syrians have intervened in Iraq as well. As have the Iranians, and almost certainly, the Russians. Syria's actions have not been limited to the territory of Syria. Juno (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point User:Juno, do you think that the Syria cross border activity is properly covered in the spillover articles? The Iranians are players in the Syrian Civil War and Iraq insurggency too. Both are/were proxy wars. Maybe just call this WWIII??? Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The temptation to just name this Second Iraq War and include everything is immense (and if I were a betting man, I'd wager thats where we'll be in 3 months) but for now I think that the reader is best served by this particular article oriented around the actions of the American-led coalition inside Iraq, which would exclude Syria/Iran/Russia/etc. But we would need an appropriate title before enforcing such limitations. Juno (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from how patently ridiculous that is on its face, there are no RS that are referring to this as "World War III." So, no, let's not "maybe just call this WWIII." DocumentError (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should just name it Mega-conflict explosion 1: Shock and awe plus beheadings. SantiLak (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is just a bit of sarcasm in case someone doesn't get that. SantiLak (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As is WWIII a little joke, we had that already and called it the Cold War. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got to love the sarcasm. Good one.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ardent edit request

 * – 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. And four Chinooks. 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)

Special forces including the Special Air Service (SAS) and additional cargo aircraft & air to air tanker aircraft on standby in the area.
 * – The Israeli government provided satellite imagery and intelligence about Western volunteers fighting for Islamic State to support the US-led campaign.
 * – 6 F/A-18F Super Hornets a E-7A Wedgetail and a KC-30A were sent in on Sept 28th
 * - Cruise missiles hit Akl Raqqar in Sirya. A refinery, the GPO, power station and army recruit center were hit on September 23rd American drones select new traget data on August 28th
 * – A mortar shells hit near the Turkey/Sirya border crossing of Mursitpinar, close to a group of journalists and Turkish security forces, and another shell landed near a refugee camp, about one kilometer inside Turkey on Sept 29th.
 * 90.244.94.220 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

90.244.94.220 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * – The Venezuela leader calls ISIS a Western 'Frankenstein' . Venezuela’s leftist President Nicolas Maduro on Sept 25 accused the west of creating ISIS ans a avaunt provocateur to justify the invasion of the Middle East. He pledged loyalty to President Assad's regime
 * – RSA Muslims condemn ISIS.
 * – The Czech Republic sent (with the help of Royal Canadian Air Force) ammunition to the Kurds. The supply consisted of 10 million rounds for AK-47, 8 million rounds for machinegun, 5,000 warheads for RPG and 5,000 hand grenades.


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

Urgent son of ardent request

 * - A Voyager A330 inflight refueling aircraft was also in used since September 28th. 2 Tornado GR4 fighter bombers are listed, but not the refuling tanker.[11] There are 6 Tornado GR4 stationed in Cyprus in total so who has put two.[12] A C-130 Hercules cargo plane, 4 Chinook helicopters, along with personnel from 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment and UK Special Forces. Additionally, the British Royal Navy has contributed HMS Defender and HMS Astute to the British Iraqi operations. All such contributions should be added or Wikipedia is not fulfilling it's role as an accurate source of information. [13]
 * 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
 * 8 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft
 * 1 Type 45 destroyer
 * 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
 * 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants)


 * - Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt announced that Denmark would be deploying 250 pilots and staff, three reserve jets on the 26th. 4 combat jets were added later that day.


 * Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt announced that Denmark would be deploying 250 pilots and staff, three reserve F-16 fighter jets and four F-16 fighter jet combatant planes on the 27th


 * A now captured Danish-Turkish militant who fought with ISIS in Syria, OA, told Danish newspaper Politiken earlier in September that Denmark was “high up on [ISIS’s] list of targets, believe me.” PET, the Danish security and intelligence service, released a report revealing that 15 of 100 Danes who have traveled to fight as ISIS militants have been killed in Syria.


 * - Aussie police call for calm after terrorist inspired 'Isis' graffiti attack in the city of Cairns on September 22nd.


 * /- Large numbers staged protests in Europe and the United States on the 26th in solidarity with the mostly Kurdish people of Kobane in Syria, coinciding with the first US airstrikes on the city’s outskirts on Saturday against Islamic State (IS or ISIS) forces. Sit-ins and protests took place on Friday and Saturday in cities in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Britain, Austria and the United States.


 * - Belgian participation for one month was authorized by the country's Chamber of Representatives in the afternoon of September 19th, after more than 3½ hours of debate.


 * The Belgian military contingent should number 120, including eight pilots and an unknown amount of F-16 multirole fighters, to be based in Jordan, Defense Minister Pieter De Crem.


 * - A pair of U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles fly over northern Iraq after conducting airstrikes in northern Syria, in the morning of September 23, 2014. Reuters

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

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

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

 * 1 Boeing RC-135 Reconnaissance aircraft
 * 8 Tornado GR4 attack aircraft
 * 1 Type 45 destroyer
 * 1 Trafalgar-class submarine (SSN)
 * 4 Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

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

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

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

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