Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:24, 29 September 2014

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

Syria Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Part of the Syrian civil war

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

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

Merge or split?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROLL CALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all foreigners

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

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

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

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

Rename to "International Military Operations in Syria, 2014"

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

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

Involvement of Israel

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

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

Public Domain video of F-22 command and control strike

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

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

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

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

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

Core-Coalition??????

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

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

Start date

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elminiate the "2014" from the title?

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

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

Renaming the Article/Need Discussion First

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove the word "coalition" from the title?

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

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

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

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Unassessed Syria articles
• Unknown-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles