Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:List of wars involving the United States

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024

Hello Mr Wikipedia could you please let me edit pages like this one. Thank you! DharMannMan (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article is set to be Wikipedia:Protection policy#Comparison table to help prevent possible vandalism to it. To edit this page, you need to have an account that is at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. However, you are more than welcome to request an edit to the page in the form at "Change X to Y" or "Add X" as long as you also provide a secondary reliable source for the change. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then DharMannMan (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for Israel-Hamas war inclusion

I am about to make an edit that will add the Israel-Hamas war to this list. This comes following the closure of an RfC that ruled in favour of including America as a belligerent in the war alongside Israel. this should be added to reflect the new consensus Genabab (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good call Genabab, but you did not change the part where it says "Four military engagements encompassing three wars, all of which are interventions, currently involve the US: the Yemeni Civil War, the Somali Civil War, and the Syrian Civil War."
Also there is a yellow flag at the bottom next to Iran with no combatant name attached to it.
Otherwise it looks good. Historyguy1138 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the proposed edits Genabab (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good edits Genabab. Looks great. Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the USS Liberty Incident during the Six-Day War?

I mean I think it would classify as a conflict, but many historians believe this was just an accidental attack on the Liberty. Still 34 men died and 171 were wounded. What does everyone think?

Six-Day War USS Liberty Incident


Historyguy1138 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental or not, its just one attack. And not a wider campaign or conflict. It's like saying the bombing of the one ship in the 90s by al-Qaeda was a conflict. Not very appropriate terminology imo Genabab (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I think I agree with you but for different reasons. It just seems to me that these were accidental attacks that the U.S. did not counterattack in.
There are several incidents on this page where the U.S. were involved in only one battle. And the article says "List of wars involving the United States" while the first line says. The United States has been involved in 115 military conflicts. Moreover it was a part of a wider campaign or conflict in that it was an attack during the Six-Day War.
If it was maybe something like the 2012 Benghazi attack I think I would agree with you. 1 because there was no U.S. military involved unless you consider U.S. mercenaries U.S. military and because it was it was not considered part of a wider conflict.
Do you think we should not include it more, because it was accidental though? Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this list is just for the overall wars. Individual attacks/military campaigns are listed at Attacks on the United States. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks Weather Event Writer (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone reading this the article Attacks on the United States is being updated. Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace: Draft:List of attacks on the United States. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Weather Event Writer Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Vandalism???) I noticed that KRD deleted the Logo of the Islamic Army in Iraq

Specifically it says that

Removing Logo_of_the_Islamic_Army_In_Iraq.svg; it has been deleted from Commons by Krd because: No permission since 23 December 2024.

Islamic Army in Iraq

A few things here. Last time I checked the logo for a now defunct terrorist group is automatically considered public domain. It would be similar for groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Can anyone confirm?

Also I checked Krd and it redirects to wiki commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krd/gallery2025&action=edit&redlink=1

The link says that "

  • If this page used to exist, it may have been deleted. Check for Krd/gallery2025 in the logs and/or in deletion requests.: So assuming that KRD no longer exists I am wondering if we are enchanting a case of Wikipedia Vandalism here. If so how do we confirm? Can we reverse the deletion of the Logo? Is not I have actually saved it and can restore it. But how do we prevent it from happening again or ask someone higher up to help us investigate? Thank you. (:

Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US Intervention against Assad government

Ok so As we all know the Assad government has fallen. there is a section here listing a war that involves the united states as America's intervention against Assad's government. However it's currently listed as ongoing which is a bit ridiculous since how can it be ongoing when the government doesn't exist anymore. What I want to do now is to open a discussion on how this should be handled.

There are three possibilities here that we can consider:

1. listing it as an American victory. Personally I'm against this, because America's actions didn't result in the overthrow of Assad. America didn't even support Tahrir al sham, which was the main militant group that actually overthrew Assad. American strikes weren't launched against Assad in 2024, and America didn't really do all that much to facilitate his downfall. However technically Assad did fall so maybe we could say this.


2. listing it as an American defeat: now this one does sound strange since of course Assad did fall, however the main interventions done by America against Assad were many years ago. And all of them failed to bring about any lasting change regarding the regime in Syria. I don't think anyone would argue that trump launching some air strikes resulted in Assad's fall in 2024. So theoretically one could argue that since Assad survived the American intervention he technically won and America technically lost because America failed to topple him. It was just somebody else that ended up toppling Assad in the long run.


3. inconclusive: I think this is probably the best response to the situation. It combines the fact that Assad ultimately fell but America wasn't the reason for that so I think maybe we should do that. Genabab (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is still ongoing war, with 2,000 US troops deployed in the country, same as it is written in the main article US intervention in the Syrian civil war. Number of US troops in Syria even increased since the last month.[1] No source saying that US ended combat missions in Syria. Plus ISIS is also part of this conflict, they are still active. US troops were deployed in Syria to fight ISIS and defeat Assad regime. Dasomm (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dasomm The issue is, it isn't ongoing at all. the US intervention in Syria is ongoing, but the US intervention against the Assad regime specifically is no longer ongoing. These two things are marked separately in the info box page. Genabab (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that it is not 100% clear if the U.S. will support the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces as well. In the past the U.S. has supported them, though it is unclear if it will again during the next administration. However, the Trump administrated abandoned them at one point during his first administration and may do so again. (Not saying that is good or bad), just saying that it is another factor to consider along with the ISIS factor as to when the military mission in Syria will end for the U.S.A. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • You cant mark whole section as an American victory in Syria only because Assad is down. After ISIS will be defeated then you can mark whole section as American victoy. In infobox it is separate to understand the conflict better, but overall it is part of US intervention in the Syrian civil war. We should follow main page in this. If ISIS will be defeated, then we can mark whole section as American victory, if ISIS will be still active and US troops will leave Syria, then it will be Inconclusive, because Assad was defeated, but ISIS not. Dasomm (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Genabab (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

157.201.98.1 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make two changes.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to indicate what your two proposed edits would be. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are U.S. border dispute wars such as The Pennamite-Yankee War and the Toledo War not included?

There are quite a number of inter-state wars such as the Pennamite-Yankee War(specifically the Third Pennamite War) between Pennsylvania and Connecticut as well as the Toledo War between Michigan and Ohio. These are just two examples but there are quite a few similar ones so I was wondering if there was any particular reason why they were excluded when other smaller scale conflicts are listed like John Browns Raid on Harper's Ferry or if it would be better to add them. Plugshirt (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These don't seem so much like Wars involving the United States Military so much as land disputes that got a bit violent between States. Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Help (Sister Article)

I am working on a big new draft article, (Draft:Attacks against the United States), which will be a partial sister-style article to this one. Obviously, several of the attacks against the United States are during wars, which are listed here. So, if anyone wanted to come help out on the new draft, feel free to.

A lot of summaries need to still be written for pretty much anything post-World War II. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition to remove the citation needed for number of conflicts.

Unless we wish to sort specifically each source from all 121 conflicts already listed on this list and linked to sources that are already found or linked in each conflict at the end of the section entitle "The United States has been involved in at least 121 military conflicts." I suggest we leave remove the citation needed link. We would just be putting between 1-121 source links based on the conflicts already linked squarely on one specific line which would be both redundant and cumbersome to readers.

After we have reverted this we should simply increase the amount of conflicts upon the discovery or emergence of new conflicts as this page has historically always done. (With the recent edition of the "at least" in the "The United States has been involved in at least 121 military conflicts." section I believe that is a worthy compromise to account for any conflicts not yet listed or that will come about in the future. (Although hopefully not war is terrible.) :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this is a dynamic list, so again new additions get added all the time and the links them should rely on the sources added already, and not have to all be listed out within the very first line of the first paragraph. Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pls review WP:SYNTH ...is the plan to list all 400?....i just removed the number. Could you also review WP:LISTVERIFY Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. Moxy🍁 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is to list all of the military conflicts as they happen good sir. Once again please look at the definition of a dynamic list. If a new war occurs or if there was one that was left out it will be added to the list. This is what has been done at the beginning of this list till now.
If you look at the WP:LISTVERIFY it also says that in that section that "It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits, does not require an inline citation."
And there is a link to the guideline that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue section. We have the list there for a reason that links to sources that all 121 of the historical conflicts indeed happened.
If you wish to personally site each and every source already linked either on the list or at the bottom page in there very first line. Then feel free to do so, I'm personally fine with it however please be thorough if you do that and double check for any Wikipedia guidelines on redundancy and ease of readability for readers. Thank you. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relally should not misleading our readers with a random number in the first sentence as if its a fact found in sources WP:Burden. The number has randomly changed many many times every time a new conflict is added despite no sources claiming any of the numbers being presented. Just state its a list - we should not imply that any source defines a number vs its a made up list that needs many many source to make it usable for research. As for WP:LISTVERIFY - clearly many entries on this list are points of contention and need sources...considering many do not match up with the main article. Wikipedia:Purpose " Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a tertiary source and provides overviews of a topic by indicating reliable sources of more extensive information.Moxy🍁 20:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy so this is not guess work as you said before. There are indeed at least 121 conflicts that the United States has been involved it. The number has not been randomly changed they have merely been added as either a new conflict has begun such as the war in Israel or an older conflict has been added that has happened historically, but was never considered by another Wikipedia editor before for example the 1st Battle of Shimonoseki Straits and the following Shimonoseki campaign.
Please tell us which conflicts you do not think historically happened or whose links are not there and then add the links if you want to after letting us know which ones you do not think were conflicts involving the USA. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will wait for others to explain as in guess i am not clear. On side note again - Is the plan to list all 400 or so? What is the criteria here? Moxy🍁 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough we can wait. Again it's a dynamic list. The plan is to include any U.S. military conflict involving the United States military. Labor wars like the coal wars or rebellions such as the whiskey rebellion do not count just as a couple of examples. We are also not including attacks on the united states that is a separate list currently in its draft phase. So single terrorist arracks, the black tom bombing, or things like the attack on the U.S.S. liberty do not count for the war list, but would count for the attack list. Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, if we check, for example List of PlayStation 5 games, there is also written - There are currently 828 games on this list. That list is maybe also incomplete, there is no source there was really released 828 games, so why the number is problem only here and not there? I would not call it random number here, all that 121 conflicts are listed in this article. I am glad, that Historyguy1138 updating this incomplete list. Dasomm (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of a list that needs to be improved..... Should be following the examples of our featured articles that are academic in nature versus pop culture... List of presidents of the United States. Some sort of realistic criteria should be established Operation Ocean Shield was a war?Moxy🍁 22:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you are defining "academic in nature' versus pop culture. Culture as a branch of pop culture is a sub category of featured topics. And all three of these lists are dynamic lists. The only difference between the presidents list and the Playstation 5 and List of Wars involving the U.S. is that there may be certain conflicts that have not been discovered/ added yet.
"Some sort of realistic criteria should be established Operation Ocean Shield was a war?"
Yes many people have brought this up before and this may merit wider discussion. Technically speaking the United States has only declared war 5 times in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2.
The thread was archived on this talk page, but I once debated here why we should include the coal wars here, but people debated that it would be closer to a rebellion or a case of civil unrest. Even though certain Coal wars or battles in them such as the Battle of Blair Mountain, started to become more civil war like in certain aspects in that they used planes, machine guns, and the U.S. military fought in it. But someone also pointed out that they also brought in the military for the LA riots.
That's why other lists like List of rebellions in the United States, List of massacres in the United States, list of Family feuds in the United States, or attacks on the united states are out there. There's also a list called List of conflicts in the United States, but that list is more of a broad list of any type of violent action in the U.S. larger than a generic murder.
We don't focus on rebellions or single attacks on the U.S.A. as much as military conflicts involving the United States military. Not rebellions (the civil war was a whole other level) and single attacks.
Yes operation Ocean Shield is considered a military conflict. Together the coalition captured or killed hundred of pirates against a foreign adversary.
Honestly I think the criteria that we have is fine at this point, but perhaps we could be a little bit more explicit about what we mean by military conflicts involving the U.S.A. I'm open to working on that and including more qualifiers at the top of the list for that. But if we do that, we should start it as a new topic on this talk page so we can hammer out the bugs and get the wording right. Historyguy1138 (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy. So being that no one else has answered on this except you me and Dasomm I am going to wait two weeks in fairness to you and get rid of the cited needed section. If anyone else chimes in before that, then of course we will continue to discuss it. The only additions that will be made if any is if new conflicts break up or discovered, however if in the unlikely event people on this page find that we should remove the list of conflicts, then of course we can take it down at a later time. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts and thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Pentagon says it doubled the number of US troops in Syria before Assad's fall". Associated Press. 19 December 2024. Retrieved 20 December 2024.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States