Talk:List of wars involving the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

The addition of the Coeur d'Alene War It would go in between the Yakima War and the second Opium War. 1958. Part of the American Indian Wars. Combatant 1: United States. Combatant 2: Skitwish, Kalispell, Spokane, Palouse & Northern Paiute. US victory.

76.126.177.230 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. On a side note, I'm unsure if this would be a separate entry or not. In any case, since this is a big list with tables, for an edit request, you'd need to indicate exactly where this goes and you need to give the full table entry you want to add to the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Note: @Deacon Vorbis: I figured out where the request would go in the tables. It would go in the 19th-century wars section however Coeur d'Alene War was the second phase of the Yakima War (as per the article Coeur d'Alene War) and Yakima War also includes it as part of its article. In the Yakima War article it says "The last phase of the conflict, sometimes referred to as the Coeur d'Alene War, occurred in 1858." There is also a discussion from 2013 about adding this war (along with a bunch of others) to the page. From what I can tell they were not added to the page and the proposal was never seriously discussed. I personally would err on side of caution and say a consensus or discussion would need to occur for this alteration before it can be implemented via an edit request. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Inconclusive?

Many "inconclusive" wars were actually defeats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

American Revolution vs American Revolutionary War

I see that the American Revolutionary War was changed to American Revolution. I think that American Revolutionary War is correct as this refers specifically to the war, whereas the American Revolution also includes the prior political movements in the US. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IP edit

Dear Ip,

please explain why you push American defeat? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tunisian flag till 1831.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Additions to think about

Hi all, very novice wiki user to apologies if this is against protocol but there's a number of additions that should at least be considered when looking at this list. Namely:

Yuma war
Tule River War
Klickitat War
Owens Valley Indian War
Coeur d’Alene War

Goshute War

Bald Hills War

First Sioux War

Ghost Dance War
Crow War

Mohave War



Second Franco-Mexican War

Reform War

First Indochine War
Soviet-Afghan War
Nepalese Civil War



Hawaiian Rebellions


Battle of Ty-Ho Bay


Battle of Boca Teacapan

Battle of Kelley Creek

Battle of Sugar Point

Battle of Bear Valley



Operation Ajax

Operation Eagle Claw
Insurgency in the Mahgreb

Operation Enduring Freedom
International military intervention against ISIL
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcharvat8 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I think that the article List of Lengths of United States participation in wars should be merged into this article. Please discuss. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing the Aroostook War

I am removing Aroostook War because it is clearly a misnomer. The conflict also appears on List of areas disputed by Canada and the United States while other border disputes on there are not classified as wars. The page for the Aroostook War also says "The term "war" was rhetorical; local militia units were called out but never engaged in actual combat. The event is best described as an international incident." I think this is just a small misunderstanding. Hope this helps! Desertambition (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing Aegean Sea anti-piracy operations of the United States

I am removing Aegean Sea anti-piracy operations of the United States because it is absolutely not a war. It is a military conflict. Desertambition (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing Shays' Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, and Fries' Rebellion

Shays' Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, and Fries' Rebellion are decidedly not wars. Their pages do not describe them as wars nor do they fit even broad definitions of war. Desertambition (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Desertambition:,

please move thos entries you just mentioned (and deleted in the article) here and the above section to the List of armed conflicts involving the United States. Please also tell me when you're done. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Update, you don't have to, I just noticed all them are present there already.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for looking out, glad they were already there! Desertambition (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing 1811 German Coast uprising

I am removing 1811 German Coast uprising because it is not a war, it is a revolt. Desertambition (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing First Sumatran expedition, Second Sumatran expedition, Ivory Coast expedition, First Fiji expedition, Second Fiji expedition, Formosa expedition, and the Korean expedition

I am removing First Sumatran expedition, Second Sumatran expedition, Ivory Coast expedition, First Fiji expedition, Second Fiji expedition, Formosa expedition, and the Korean expedition because they are not wars, they are punitive expeditions. Desertambition (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

removing the end of slavery from the results of the civil war

technically the slaves were freed after the war but saying that the civil war freed slaves would be like saying that WWII put a man on the moon Vivilitrion (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Article is in need of major revisions

Half of the "wars" listed on this page are not wars at all. This page requires significant change in my opinion. This could also be renamed to a list of "conflicts" but that would require many more additions and I think there is merit in having a page devoted to US-involved wars as opposed to general conflicts. Desertambition (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I second this! It is very misleading (and appears to be deliberately so). The US was VICTORIOUS (hooray!) when they "invaded" Iraq in 2003? What, because they managed to land their planes and got troops on the ground? The invasion of 2003 was the BEGINNING of a war (started by the US without support of the international community) that lasted at least until 2011 (and arguably hasn't actually ended yet, but has evolved in different chapters since 2003 including one phase when US troops had withdrawn from the conflict which continued nonetheless). Reviewing this is like looking at propaganda where the intent is to try to make it look like the US has been a lot more successful in international conflicts than an actual study of history would reveal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A448:D4A0:1:100C:E728:7A8D:7C64 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed, lots of relatively minor conflicts added that only serve as "filler victories" (since when does a hostage rescue count as a war) and other wars split over multiple entries. Needs a good sorting through. Prepare for an edit war. 95.148.8.75 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a regular editor of this article and don't plan to be one, but I believe that there should be a consensus among editors something like: "for purposes of this article, the term war is defined as [...]", and the substance of that consensus should be stated in the lead section of this article. Some time ago, I made some edits to the Timeline of United States military operations article (my last edit there seems to have been in 2015), and I recall similar problems there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell:, @2601:241:C200:B030:10E0:D24:24AA:4E0:, @2A02:A448:D4A0:1:100C:E728:7A8D:7C64:, @95.148.8.75:

please also have in mind to any changes, removals to synchronize with the List of armed conflicts involving the United States, so what is not war, should go there.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC))

• Agreed, definitely need a clearer definition of what constitutes a war and partaking in one. It should also clarify when multiple campaigns do and do not constitute a single war. I think we can all agree WWII should be classed as a single war where the Cold war should not, however the Somali interventions and 2003 Iraq war are debatable. In the case of the Somali Interventions I'd be happy to leave them as multiple entries being that troops were withdrawn and there was a significant period of time between them though however the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the Iraq War should really be a single entry being as it was a phase of. 95.148.8.75 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Flags of North American indigenous nations

These flags all date from the 20th century and were not in contemporary use during the times of these early wars. I will make a start in deleting them. Király-Seth (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "Lebanon Crisis" to "Lebanon crisis" and "Lebanese Opposition" to "Lebanese opposition" and "Multinational Intervention in Lebanon" to Multinational intervention in Lebanon" to fix over-capitalization.}} Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And please change "[[Nicaragua|Nicaraguan Liberals]]" to "[[Constitutionalist Liberal Party|Nicaraguan Liberals]]" so the capped Liberals makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Full protection why?

@Callanecc: Why the full protection? I'm not seeing editing disputes between extended-confirmed editors. Most of the recent edits have been among IPs. Semi or extended protection would make more sense. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 07:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: At a very brief look, Shadow4dark, Ganesha811 and Fruitloop11 are extended confirmed. The full protection requires forces a consensus to be established about the issues in contention (Afganistan, Libya and Iraq) to be discussed on the talk page. Having said that, I agree that once the wording is resolved based on sources that semi protection might be appropriate if IPs come in and try to change that. However, a consensus based on sources, needs to emerge before it can be enforced. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Shadow4dark and Fruitloop11 both supported the notion that the Taliban won, and Ganesha811 was editing about a different war. None of the extended confirmed editors were in disagreement with each other, it was the IPs being disruptive. You should have just thrown semiprotection up instead of locking it for everyone...smh... TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: It doesn't matter at all whether or not the extended confirmed editors were in agreement with each other, what matters is who was involved in the dispute. If editors who are confirmed are involved then semi protection can't be used can't be used likewise with extended confirmed protection, if extended confirmed editors are involved ECP can't be used. Ganesha811, Shadow4dark and Fruitloop11 were disagreeing with non-extended confirmed editors without a consensus-supported version therefore full protection was the remaining protection option. As I said above, once there is a consensus-supported version it stops being a content dispute and moves closer to disruptive editing by those editing against the consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Wars

Edit request: The introduction to the article states that four wars are ongoing but since the War in Afghanistan has ended, the article should be revised to three. FireFlask (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

American intervention in Libya

It has a white tint over a grey tint, is there a reason? Doremon764 (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Afganistan war

The US did not "lose" the Afghan war. The US did not succeed in it's objects, but deciding to end a SUCCESSFUL occupation (and it was, as the Taliban were all but defeated) that gave way to the opposition to swiftly regain power isn't "losing". It isn't "winning", since the objectives were never fully realized, but it isn't "losing". That one needs to be changed to blue. The Iraq war should be green. The country of Iraq was decimated, and their leader executed. The insurgencies that followed should be yellow, as they are still ongoing, politically separate, and do not mark that war as "inconclusive". The war with the nation of Iraq was a decisive victory. That is all.

I guess it should go as "lost" on the ledger. Don't you think so boys? --2800:E2:280:1EB:29A6:B12F:A92C:E6F0 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, as the US-led forces/Afghan government and the Taliban were effectively the only belligerent sides in the war; a Taliban victory and government takeover objectively meant a US coalition defeat. Many sources are already starting to compare Fall of Kabul with Fall of Saigon: [1][2] See also the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present). @Trickymaster:

NoNews! 01:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The USA could not achieve any of it objectives in this war: The taliban is still active, no democracy for Afghanistan and arguably the talibans are stronger than before. --Ají Picante (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This needs to be changed to an American defeat. :(

--KC31SF20 (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Boys"...? Are you serious? And to think, thousands of people come to this page per day to see the 'Wikipedia official' ruling on who won the Afghan war, and this is how its being decided?--UshankaCzar (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

See this source, it calls like other many sources a US defeat Shadow4dark (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree its a defeat for the US, it just seemed weird expecting Wikipedians decide a winner for a major geopolitical contest like they might call the winner of a game of flip cup.--UshankaCzar (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced of this. Maybe the blue stalemate color? The US was successful in its initial invasion and in its al Qaeda eradication efforts. Strictly speaking, the Taliban "victory" came after American withdrawal. The US did succeed in replacing the government; that government was not successful in surviving post-American occupation. The nation building is retrospectively a failure, but was the American mission? What was the American mission? The lack of definition on that point is likely the problem... Jbbdude (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jbbdude Ultimately you are correct. The United States has never suffered a legitimate "defeat" in war, in the classical sense; Military defeat, Surrender. etc. Though it has seen its fair share of political upsets; often self made due to changes of policy. Often times the United States "defeats" come during times of minor (or no) American involvement. For example, the famous case of the Fall of Saigon. This happened in 1975, a full 2 years after the United States removed its military from the country. The ARVN (South Vietnamese Military) had carried out the war by itself for over 2 years, and controlled most of the conflict as far back as 1971. The South Vietnamese government collapsed due to various reasons IE; Corruption, a cutting of funds by the USA, and policies like the Case Church Amendment which prohibited USA military involvement. Though it was clearly an epic political disaster for the USA (largely due to its inaction), its not what we could call a true defeat. The same thing is obviously applied to Afghanistan as well. The United States military had not been in a combat role since 2014, and the war was being carried out by the Afghan Military/Government for over 7+ years. Once again, the Afghan Government collapsed not so much due to Taliban strength, but to its own corruption and ineptness. Once again, a common denominator was the lack of American involvement. Yes, there was limited air support to the Afghan Government, however we never saw any real commitment by the USA to aid the Afghans. Instead, we saw a USA distancing itself, unwilling to aid the Afghans turn the tide, and ultimately more interested in removing its military involvement. Had the United States been more involved, we would never have seen a Taliban takeover.

The Taliban would clearly have never been capable of defeating the United States military, but merely needed to wait out any sort of United States involvement to gain the upper hand on the Afghan Government, which could never get past its own internal inadequacies. These internal struggles within the Afghan Government led to a weakening of relations with the USA (even threats of cutting funding if certain issues were not resolved.. such as the previous Afghan election). The Taliban quite literally took advantage of a lack of United States involvement. The way we define these conflicts as "defeats" tends to be misleading to anyone who has ever actually attempted to study them. They usually suffer more under the inadequacies of American allies (South Vietnam/Afghan Government) than the United States itself. It like watching a Basketball game, where the starting lineup (USA) gives the team a 50 point lead, but are only allowed to play the First Half. Then, the Bench players (Afghan Gov) rapidly lose the lead, and end up costing the team the game in the end. This is why wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan tend to be contested by many Americans. For the United States, its just ridiculous to assume a war is a "humiliating defeat" when you are no longer heavily involved in it. The true humiliation for the USA in Afghanistan, is how the USA Government botched the withdrawal process.... haha Every conflict the USA "Lost" has always ended this way.. and always during a time when United States had little to no involvement.. or when our Allied Government (South Vietnam/Afghanistan) suffered humiliating defeats. Then its just an "American defeat" Because it sounds good to people. It really is time to accept these wars for the reality, instead of the sensationalism that seems so common place in the media and public. Njofallofall (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a war, and an occupation. The Taliban clearly lost the war. They were driven out of the country. There was simply no point in continuing to occupy the country. The people there do not live by the same ideals. They did not wish to support a government to oppose the Taliban's moral influence. America left. The Taliban returned. There was no war in the Taliban returning. They didn't win any war. The war itself was American's victory. I would argue the occupation a loss, but the original goals of the war were met. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the table is about wars and the Taliban did not win the war, I think Withdrawal, NATO failure, Status quo ante bellum are all infinitely more appropriate. Many of the other pages do not list it as a defeat. Besides, most of the countries did not offer a single combat troop. ISAF ended in 2014 with success. Past that it was really just an occupation, not a war. 5.151.88.2 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Colour Code

I'm not sure the red/green colour code is a good idea here, considering the connotations of green as good and red as bad. Would more neutral colours not be more appropriate? 82.44.208.58 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bombing of Libya??

This is not a war by any stretch of the imagination. There wasn't even a battle, just bombs dropped. Secondly, is it really a military 'victory' for the US when they dropped bombs on the leader of Libya's compound, yet he survived?Angele201002 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Second French intervention in Mexico

Why isn’t the Second French intervention in Mexico listed here?CycoMa1 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan

This discussion has no consensus that us lost the war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States/Archive_3#Afganistan_war Shadow4dark (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine c.feb 2022

Should the US and other nations be considered considered for their supporting rolls? Former US troops are currently fighting within Ukrainian units. US observers and combat experts on pay from the United States Department of Defense and Nato personnel have been within Ukrainian boarders conducting weapons training and making agreements of financial, military, and humanitarian aid.

 If nothing else, should an adition to the page be drafted given the current rhetoric of president Joseph Biden? 2600:1700:4D10:3DF0:B149:6A8C:F1D2:16A4 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added. While US equipment is being used, there are not current american troops fighting in Ukraine that I am aware of. If us made weapons in use was counted, then there would probably be a lot more to add.

By all means, draft one if you want. But until current US military soldiers engage russian forces, I would reccomend against adding it. SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Add End of Cold War

The end of the (1st) Cold War (Mar 12, 1947 – Dec 26, 1991) should be added as a US-allied victory. -Artanisen (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

Please remove the old Choctaw flag (File:Flag of The Choctaw Brigade 02.svg) from the label "Comanche" in the "Texas-Indian Wars" section of the 19th century conflicts. Our tribe was a co-belligerent of the U.S. against the Comanche, so the flag should represent us. The Comanche did not have a flag at this time. Advise either utilizing the modern Comanche flag as seen in the "Civil War" section, or do not include one. If the Choctaw flag is to be used, use it while including the Choctaw Nation on the side of the United States during this conflict, as seen on the corresponding page of "List of wars involving Mexico." Thank you. 174.65.93.112 (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Voting graph on main page? USA CIA involvment election interference attempts to overthow governments

I propose a foreign war, CIA involvment, US attempts to overthrow, and voting graph, it would probably be several pages long. Has this been done yet?

1. Voting - 81 countries

The U.S. has intervened in the most elections between 1946 to 2000: 81 elections in total, followed by the Soviet Union/Russia with 36 examples of interference.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/04/u-s-interferes-more-elections-than-russia-meddling-author-says/5700657002/

The U.S. is the biggest election meddler of them all, new book claims. Kim Hjelmgaard USA TODAY

The United States has messed with more than twice as many elections as Russia/Soviet Union, according to "Meddling in the Ballot Box: The Causes and Effects of Partisan Electoral Interventions," out September 7 2020. Dov H. Levin, a political scientist at the University of Hong Kong first in-depth analysis of electoral interventions "from the dawn of the modern era to the 2016 Russian intervention in the U.S. election."

ISBN: 978-0-19751-989-9 review

Russia 1996 

https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%22meddling+in+the+ballot+box%3A+the+causes+and+effects+of+partisan+electoral+interventions%22+pdf+download&lr=213&src=suggest_Nin

2. Government overthrown

Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List By William Blum

https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list (to Ukraine 2014)

The CIA has Blum's book on their webpage.

3. Wars with the USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

I am trying to find master list...

Tulsipres (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023

Change "Belligerent" to "Opposition"

I suggest we make this change as belligerent is an inaccurate term when applied to only one side of an armed conflict. Zero924 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Russo-Ukraine War

With reports today that American troops are on the ground. I think it would be appropriate to add it to the list. 2601:243:1400:D95:DAD:88E2:5646:DAD6 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referencing but I believe that is a very untrue statement. The only Americans that are partaking in the war have volunteered on their own will to either fight or help with aid. They're not there as a government force or arm thereof. LDS20 (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The US is providing material support, so that counts as being involved since it shows a clear alliance. It should be added.

BenW (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

The United States lost the Iraq war, it should be red in the table and it should be written "US-allied defeat". Parham wiki (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I was able to edit. Thank you for the link you gave, it helped me a lot. Have a good night. Parham wiki (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it a defeat. The Iraqi army was defeated in the invasion phase and the Baathist insurgency also failed. The coalition achieved a temporary victory against the AQI/ISI insurgency at the time of the US withdrawal, as mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. Unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIL did not ultimately win and does not retain any territorial control of Iraq. The article above mentions Iran is the only one to be in a better position politically after the Iraq War, which while accurate, Iran was not the primary combatant of the conflict. Labeling the war a partial/temporary victory or "Inconclusive" as it has been listed before, would be more accurate. 74.102.58.245 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

France should be included in the allied list of participants of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). France armed forces operated there from 2001 to 2014. Galgot (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given the uncontested objections and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging List of armed conflicts involving the United States into this article. The two articles are nearly identical, except for the inclusion of wars prior to American independence in the former. --Cyrobyte (talk • email) 18:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A lot of other entries are not accounted for in the wars involving the United States article.

For example, The Colorado Labor Wars I feel should absolutely be included as one of the wars the US was involved in.

Especially when events like Bleeding Kansas are part of the list.

I'm particularly interested in the working class struggle against the capitalist class and I noticed that none of the labor related wars are listed.

Certain ones make sense because they are links to specific battles, but even those can almost always be consolidated into a broader war that was going on.

For example, the Ludlow Massacre which was part of the Colorado Coalfield War.

There are also some post-1937 labor wars that are not included

Some (but not all) examples of what I mean:

Colorado Labor Wars

1905 Chicago Teamsters' Strike

Pressed Steel Car Strike of 1909

Copper Country strike of 1913–14

Ludlow Massacre

Everette Massacre

Steel strike of 1919

Battle of Blair Mountain

etc.

tldr: I completely agree that the articles should be merged (with the information in both included) or the List of wars should be updated/fixed. ZacharySasser (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think they (probably) should not be merged. If there is an issue concerning which armed conflicts should be added to this article, then that should be discussed; a disregard for a number of wars (or inclusion of armed conflicts that are not wars) means there's a problem with which wars to include, not a problem with the very idea of the article (i.e., the simutaneous existence of the "conflict" and "war" article). I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable about history, but under the premise that there is a substantial difference in definitions between "armed conflict" and "war", there is value in having seperate articles for armed conflicts and wars. I kinda assume there is a substantial difference, as a strike or rebellion seems to be far from a war.

Also, if a merge takes place, and there is any difference between the definitions of "armed conflict" and "war", it would probably make more sense for the war article to be merged into the armed conflict article, rather than the currently proposed armed conflict article merges into war article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

the difference is mostly political posturing.

it is also a soft definition, consisting mostly of things that make it a war, but are not required for a war to be a war.

e.g. declaration of war or legislature approves a war.

declaration of war makes it a war, but declarations of war are not sent in all wars, and wars are fought without legislatures voting on it even when it's in their consitutions.

like the usa https://www.npr.org/2020/01/12/795661019/how-presidents-wage-war-without-congress 85.147.66.47 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t want to split hairs here, but combining does not make for a cohesive definition of “How many wars has the United States been in“. We just want to cite the number of times the United States has militarily been at war with other nations. Definitely keep internal conflicts a separate issue. Nobody wants to wade through internal versus external conflicts, there are just too many. Clarabelle jr (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been proposed for deletion by DeepSolstice (talk · contribs), citing redundancy, inaccuracy, and imprecise scope. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an anonymous student creating a project in which I list every U.S. war in a neat little timeline. There are already so many "foreign police actions" that I'm starting to wonder whether I'll ever finish, or if they're just gonna load 10 more onto the list while I'm making it. If you decide to make this merge, I will be greatly inconvenienced. But, of course, you can do what you like, and I have no say, as I haven't got a Wikipedia account. 208.102.249.197 (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

I noticed in at the beginning it states that the US was involved in 105 Wars, though adding all the numbers together when divided among wins, ties, loses, and ongoing it counts to 106. The USS Farragut (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Golem08 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Korean War

Can this really be considered an American victory given that America tried and failed to conquer the North. Firestar47 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally agree that this should be a stalemate, but their reasons for this being a victory is that the UNSC Resolution 83 goals were achieved. Number1pencil (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is all RARARA America. The key editors don't like admitting the failures. I mean, Iraq as a victory. And this war in Pakistan which the US won? The one that stopped the Taliban sheltering there and returning to Afghanistan? That's a victory? Yeah. Sure. 5.173.164.36 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Add ukrainian war Grayhar58 (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It looks like this list is only for wars where the United States had a military presence on the battlefield. Tollens (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 American–Middle East conflict

There have been a few edits to the article that lists the 2023 American–Middle East conflict as a new and distinct war for America. This is not held up by the article itself or the edits added by the user. The Article and the edit says that this is a "Part of the American intervention in the Syrian civil war". So it should not be listed as a separate and distinct war if it is a part of a war already listed. DarkAzure (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@DarkAzure: It is a little funny that you brought up WP:No original research in the discussion above. Your argument to remove it and argue that it is part of the Syrian civil war is solely based on a Wikipedia article, which contained now removed original research as well as being classified as a generally unreliable source. Can you please list an actual reliable source indicating the 2023 American-Middle East conflict is in fact, a part of the Syrian civil war? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean you can just check the sources there yourself as well This is a list page, not an article. Please go to those article and make your changes and seek consensus there--DarkAzure (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Results

Some of the claims of victory are spurious as best:

1. Korean War: NK invasion was repelled, then the SK invasion (backed by the US) was repelled. Should be a military stalemate. Some goals (removing the occupation SK) were achieved, some (occupation of NK) were not.

2. Bombing of Libya: The US bombed Gaddafi's compound but didn't kill him. This was the main objective. They also shot down a few aircraft. Again, should be inconclusive.

3. American intervention in the War in North-West Pakistan: The insurgency in KP is still ongoing. American withdrawal does not mean that the Taliban, TTP, etc. were defeated. It's a similar situation to the Iraq War. Some targets (PK: bin Laden/IQ: Hussain) neutralised, US withdrawal, the insurgency gets stronger due to the reemergence of other leaders in the same or different groups (PK: TTP, Taliban/IQ: ISIS) 200.122.251.34 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the 2023 American–Middle East conflict count as a conflict involving the United States?

There is a disagreement currently between editors on whether or not the 2023 American–Middle East conflict counts as a conflict involving the United States.

• I say yes it does. It is obvious through the article that the U.S. is currently involved in a conflict in the Middle East. Two carrier strike groups in the Middle East and the U.S. has already conducted retaliatory strikes after being attacked over 2 dozen times. This conflict started more as a result of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, and recently, the 2023 American–Middle East conflict was removed from the Israel-Hamas war article, because the American–Middle East conflict is a result of said war. Some editors are arguing that this is related to the Syrian civil war, but if that was the case, then the Israel-Hamas war would be spill-over of the Syrian civil war as well (given the parent (per se) of the American–Middle East conflict is the Israel-Hamas war). However, that is not the case by a long shot. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• No. Nothing you have said changes the fact that the article you cite says the American intervention in the Syrian civil war, the Rojava conflict and spillover in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Everything else you are saying is original research, please see Wikipedia:No original research.--DarkAzure (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I just removed that original research from the article. There is sources (like the Institute for the Study of War) which do clearly indicate this is part of the Israel-Hamas war (example from Nov 4), but I do not know of a source indicating it is part of the Syrian Civil war. So, that WP:OR was removed. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help, but Let's keep the edits on the talk page for the moment. Don't forget that this is a list linking to articles.

Ok so it is your thesis that America is a main belligerent in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. At the moment that article lists Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Resistance Committees, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Hezbollah, Lebanese Resistance Brigades, Houthi movement, & Israel as the Belligerents. If it is your thesis that the USA should be listed as a belligerent in that conflict. Then please seek consensus there and once obtained in that article (not just an edit, but consensus on the page) it should indeed be listed here as well. This is not the page for that conversation. The 2023 Israel–Hamas war page is where it should occur. --DarkAzure (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also to note, your argument was solely based on a generally unreliable source. You need to provide a reliable secondary source indicating this conflict is part of the Syrian civil war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, using the page as written where sources are listed and where people who have more knowledge on the subject tend to be. This is a list page, this is not a main article. So please get a consensus on the pages you are citing before you add them to the list if you believe that those pages disagree with your beliefs.--DarkAzure (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how that works. Wikipedia as a whole per community consensus was deemed to be an unreliable source. You still must list a reliable secondary source for your argument. Everything you just listed is soley using Wikipedia as a source, which does not mean anything. Please read WP:RS and WP:RSPWP. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean you can just check the sources there yourself as well This is a list page, not an article. Please go to those article and make your changes and seek consensus there--DarkAzure (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

DarkAzure, you just proved my point correct actually. Out of those 20 sources, the term "civil war" appears 0 times. In fact, that 20th reference you provided says and I quote, "But with a war raging in the Gaza Strip and fears of an escalation into a regional conflict there is an underlying worry that Iran and its proxies could soon get involved in the fight between Israel and Hamas, sparking a wider and even more serious war." You pretty much just proved majority of sources don't indicate this is part of the Syrian civil war at all (i.e. 20 referenced provided saying it isn't). I would have to sit down and read all of them to see how many indicate a new conflict more like US vs Iran style, but I would bet most of those 20 do. Either way, you still have yet to provide an actual source saying this is part of the Syrian civil war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not a good-faith edit. "“These narrowly tailored strikes in self-defense were intended solely to protect and defend U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria,” Mr. Austin said. “They are separate and distinct from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and do not constitute a shift in our approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict.”" New York Times. Please wait for the other editors. This is a list, not an article. Why are you not making changes on the main Wikipages on this subject if you believe that this proves your point? Please make changes there. If consensus is formed there I have no objection. But as it stands the only place you are making changes to is here. Go to 2023 Israel–Hamas war or 2023 American–Middle East conflict and make those changes and cite it as a new American war. No source you have shown has said that America is now in a new war. It might happen, yet the pages are clear that is not the case and the sources all talk about American "US bases in Syria and Iraq" or trying to ensure conflict does not spread. If consensus forms on those articles then that's fine, just have those conversations there.--DarkAzure (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify what you mean DarkAzure, you are opposed to it being related to the Israel-Hamas war? I presume you haven't located a source for it being part of the Syrian civil war yet. Would you have an objection to it being an independent conflict the US is involved in, given it wouldn't be (1) apart of the Syrian civil war and not (2) apart of the Israel-Hamas war? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, I have not seen any evidence to show that this is an active and distinct war from other active wars America is in at the moment. America's 1998 bombing of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory is not listed as a war, nor are the multiple other targeted bombings that America has done over the past 70 years... Targeted bombings in of itself does not signify a war, weirdly enough. However, I do believe that this conversation is not best placed on a list article's talk page. This should be discussed in the main article in question's talk page, where more people who have an interest in this subject can discuss their thoughts on the matter. Once consensus is formed there and people do see this as indeed a new war, with sources also declaring it as such (not just a bombing but a new war), then it would need to be added as a separate entity / a part of the Israel-Hamas war/Syrian civil war, whichever is decided.--DarkAzure (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can this be shown to be an active war that is not like the bombing of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which has never been considered a war, and a war that is separate and distinct from other active wars? Is this an actual active war? Are there sources saying as such? Only sources so far say things like “These narrowly tailored strikes in self-defense were intended solely to protect and defend U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria,” Mr. Austin said. “They are separate and distinct from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and do not constitute a shift in our approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict.” New York Times. This may indeed be seen as a war, one which expands across the Middle East, it might even sadly happen very soon, but we must remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --DarkAzure (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@DarkAzure:, with all respect, you seem to be the only editor opposed to it’s addition. Another editor has tried to add it in the past (which you reverted), I have added it (you reverted) we discussed it (us two alone), discovered it clearly it not part of the Syrian civil war, meaning it isn’t part of an ongoing conflict and started in October 2023, I re-added it after you failed to provide a source saying it was part of the Syrian Civil war (with my re-addition not including it), I was thanked by an editor and two other editors worked to improve it’s addition before your last revert. I am going to go ahead and re-revert it back, since this seems to be like beating a dead house carcass. Given this timeline, if you truly believe it is not an independent conflict, I would suggest you open an RfC on its removal. With how many editors are clearly in support of it + silent support through not reverting, but improve it, the consensus is to include it as a stand-alone conflict. But, like I said, if you can provide solid evidence to say it is not an independent conflict, one that is clearly apart of one of the other 4 ongoing conflicts (Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Niger), then please, open a Request for Comment (RfC) and that will do more alerts to other editors and would provide a solid consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Btw, before I say anything else, thanks for being polite and assuming best intentions 😃 I did double check the edit history and I am unsure if I missed something as I could see it was the two of us going back and forth recently (can we just keep this on the talk page instead on the article btw?). The only other editor who made input on this so far was Dasomm who reverted it back to Status Quo after your addition. You Mention WP:SILENCE & WP:CON, yet it is clear that is not the case as the edit has been immediately disputed after the edit. I was also hoping that you could provide sources that this is indeed a separate and distinct war. I have given other examples of past military actions which are not considered a part of any war, yet I am open to evidence from reliable sources stating that this is indeed a new and independent war from any others as there is a chance you are correct, I just have not seen any at the moment. Have you found any you can provide? It is not on myself to disprove the edit you are trying to add as "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" WP:BURDEN. I would love for more people to be involved in this, though I am unsure if a list page is the best place to do it.--DarkAzure (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Well @HuntersHistory: restored it in this edit, which was the immediate edit right after Dasomm. Also, @Omnipaedista: was that editor I talked about who thanked my re-addition. Omnipaedista, I know why you didn’t see their support, but I am unsure how you missed HuntersHistory’s support for its re-addition, since they mentioned it in their edit summary. Either way, you are correct about WP:BURDEN saying that. To me, I personally feel the burden of proof is on you, given your objections have completely switched from (not actual quotes) “It is part of the Syrian civil war” to “It isn’t an independent conflict”. But nonetheless, it seems there are at least 5 editors related to this overall dispute, and, rather than go to a dispute resolution, I am going to start an RfC on this matter. That should clear up this and hopefully get a clear consensus. Also, thank you as well for assuming good faith :D. Hopefully the RfC will clear this up for everyone. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah good catch I did not see that edit. So there have been two others who briefly were involved. I did not catch that one. As for Omnipaedista, I have only seen this edit and not what you mentioned. Well, I do see it as a part of the Syrian civil war if you are curious, as so far, to my own eyes it does seem to me that they are trying to stay out of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. However, I am very willing to know that my views might be in error. As for WP:BURDEN I did quote the section that specifically states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". As you are the editor who added this and changed the status quo, I do hope you can understand why I have asked for verifiable sources saying otherwise. The quote I have shared multiple times does indeed state that it is a part of the Syrian Civil War, though I will restate that understanding might change at any moment. And I would like to say again that it is nice to have a good conversation with another person on the Internet. So many people seem to take differences of opinion as an affront. It is nice to meet someone who is willing to discuss those differences 😃 I also hope that a good RFC could get others involved and see if other sources can be found one way or another.--DarkAzure (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023

I believe that the Korean War section should be edited to say inconclusive to line up with the actual article page for the Korean War. This can mislead people who are trying to learn about conflicts the USA has been in and also those trying to learn about the Korean War. Adriiwan (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

Does the 2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria count as a new and separate war for the United States? Is it a wider part of the American intervention in the Syrian civil war, the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, or is it more akin to the 1998 bombing of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory which was not a war. Can sources be shown to support any of the above? DarkAzure (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Point of information – The article has been renamed to 2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria based on overwhelming consensus at Talk:2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria#Requested move 1 November 2023 as evaluated by SJ. – Fuzheado | Talk 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I have changed the text to reflect that.--DarkAzure (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Do not list/Wait - At the moment I believe that it is too soon to tell where it will ultimately be. In hindsight, it will be far clearer and easier to place. At the moment the only quotes that have been found state that it is seen as a wider part of the American intervention in the Syrian civil war "“These narrowly tailored strikes in self-defense were intended solely to protect and defend U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria,” Mr. Austin said. “They are separate and distinct from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and do not constitute a shift in our approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict.”" New York Times Who knows, tomorrow it might be abundantly clear if this should be listed with another conflict, as its own conflict, or if it should not be listed. But until there are reliable sources stating that this is a new and independent war from other conflicts America is involved with and not similar to the 1998 bombing, I do think that it should not be listed until the facts show otherwise. --DarkAzure (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Separate war — In this article from CNN, “The US carried out airstrikes targeting two facilities linked to Iranian-backed militias in eastern Syria…The US assessed that the airstrikes against the facilities linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated groups”. Besides the location of the attacks being Syria, “Syrian civil war” was not mentioned. Then we have where Houthi shot down a US drone as well as where the U.S. shot down a Houthi missile heading for Israel, not Syria over the Red Sea. Then we have this article from NBC News, which says “The groups conducting the attacks are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a Pentagon spokesman said.” Again, 0 mention of Syria except as a location for some of the attacks. This is an overall proxy war between the U.S. and Iran, not part of the Syrian civil war. This also is spillover from the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, which kickstarted this smaller proxy conflict starting 18 October. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• No. There is no such thing as 2023 American–Middle East conflict. This page is a classic WP:OR and it must be renamed.My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, this discussion is not about a renaming. The renaming discussion can be found here. This is whether it is part of the Syrian civil war. In that No !vote, you didn't actually provide reasoning for it being a part of the Syrian civil war. Do you have a reasoning for it being part of the Syrian civil war, or was this a wrongly placed comment meant for the renaming discussion? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I tried to respond that this does not "count as a new and separate war for the United States" simply because this is not a war by the United States (yet). Hence it should not be included to the list. The renaming discussion of the page under discussion is very much relevant in this regard. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, that helps clarify your comment some. That said, how would this article be listed in this list? The main discussion is (1) is it apart of an ongoing conflict already listed here. There are four ongoing conflicts right now listed here. If the attacks are directly apart of one of those 4 ongoing conflicts, it gets listed under it. If it isn’t apart of an ongoing conflict, then it gets its own entry on the list. That new entry would be either independent (as you are opposed to), or spillover from the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, which is still an independent entry on the list (as it isn’t part of one of the ongoing conflicts), but it would be listed not as an independent conflict, but rather a spillover conflict. So you are opposed to it being listed as an independent entry, but that still doesn’t really answer how it is categorized, since no individual entry means it is part of one of the four ongoing conflicts. I hope that someone helps explain the purpose of this RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Comment. OK. I think the page under discussion should be renamed as 2023 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria. Arguably, it is already a war by the US because US forces responded by hitting several targets, mostly in Syria. This might be a part of the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, but the targets are located far away of the area. Hence it might be indeed regarded as a separate war, but I would rather wait to see how these events will develop. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be accurate to put you down as a Do not list/Wait or are you saying that this should be listed under the American intervention in the Syrian civil war section?--DarkAzure (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is Do not list/Wait. Based on current info, the involvement of US to actual combat (such as shooting targets with missiles) is not significant yet. But the Israel-Hezbollah conflict will became bigger, with poorly predictable results. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  That is more or less where I am at, too. "Wars involving..." seems a little woolly to me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Do not list/wait WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. We follow, we do not lead. Anything else would be WP:OR. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: My tentative impression is that we ought to wait for greater coverage by RS, and for the results of the RM on the page itself. I do not feel strongly, and if there is further escalation (and, more importantly, further coverage by RS) I would almost certainly support inclusion. I definitely think this RfC should not be closed in a hurry, to give commenters time to see how things unfold. So, to be clear, my vote is not “No, exclude”, it’s “wait for now, but let’s keep the RfC open”. Some relevant articles from RS, posted Nov. 13: Politico; The Guardian; ABC; The Nation (which is more about domestic politics, but may be interesting to some). WillowCity^(talk) 03:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) Pinged for this RfC by FRS
• Do not list/wait Too early to tell right now. Anything else is OR/feelings. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It is well sourced that there was a sustained low intensity conflict against US forces in Syria and Iraq from January 2020 onwards. See here [3]. There had been an article that covered this conflict, which has since been deleted. There was a pause in attacks by these Iranian backed proxy groups during the middle of this year. They restarted after the normalization talks with Israel and Saudi Arabia started to bear fruit in the fall. That there is a proxy conflict between the US and Iran is absolutely clear and well established by reliable sources. Whether or not this current round of fighting is a "separate conflict" from the post January 2020 fighting is a question that has yet to be answered.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria are happening for a number of years already [4], they have only intensified right now. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Don't you mean No, as in not a new war according to your reasoning? 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  This was a reply to the above conversation, not a new vote. This user has already voted earlier for Do not list/wait. --DarkAzure (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• No, as of now part of the ongoing American intervention in the Syrian civil war, pending further escalation. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes It can be regarded as a separate item, and has its sufficient related sources to indicate its notability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• New/Separate Not that I am any sort of expert, but it seems that if Operation Observant Compass rises to inclusion in the List, then the recent increase in engagements in and around Iraq and Syria are likewise qualified. Plenty of sources. All this said, there is no deadline for inclusion -- it should be discussed for at least a number of days. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

United States invasion of Honduras of 1859 : imaginary war?

The United States invasion of Honduras section does not cite any external sources, and only internally links to the spanish page of José Santos Guardiola, which has a small section on Guerra "Honduro-Estadounidense (1859)", but which does not contains any sources at all.

I was not able to find any reference or sources talking about this war after half an hour of research. As the page is protected I can not edit it but I would strongly suggest either adding a reference needed tag right now, or if a verified user has a bit more time to verify references can not be found, removing the content entirely.

Xelote (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Since I was verified after posting this, I removed the section myself, until sources can be found. Xelote (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure if my edit was correct in terms of table formatting, could someone more experienced with tables check it? Thanks Xelote (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the American-Algerian war not on this list?

The war which occurred from 1785-1795 is oddly not present on this list and I cannot edit it to add it. 92.236.80.105 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024

In WW2, I would like to add Vichy Frances to the Axis belligerents. Wunpun1 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 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. Charliehdb (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2024

I would like to change the result of 1982-1984 multinational force in the Lebanon civil war, because that conflict resulted in a negotiated stalemate 68.226.25.24 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Did the Philippine-American War end in 1902 or 1913?

This article presents the canonically recognized end-year as 1902. Regarding post-1902 conflicts in the Philippines, a contested claim asserts:

"Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war."self-published YouTube video of an individual who is not a subject-matter expert on the Philippine-American War, asserts a novel end-date for the Philippine-American War that has not passed peer review by established subject-matter experts.

This claim is used to justify inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the article info box of the Philippine-American War. Does anyone have any thoughts or views on the veracity of this claim? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Chino-Catane (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think saying we lost the Iraq war is ignorant.

Propaganda to say we lost the Iraq war. It was a fight against saddam. The after math is the aftermath. But we won the Iraq war and hung their leader. 50.45.25.163 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. The US also won the war in Afghanistan. The way people think of this war is frankly bizarre and historically unprecedented. In Iraq and Afghanistan the war was over very quickly, enemy forces were completely destroyed, enemy army disbanded, enemy government killed or sent into hiding... they're both total, absolute victories. All US goals achieved. After that, the occupation of both countries began. 20 years later, the occupation ended. Saying that the US lost Afghanistan would be like saying the US lost World War 2 because eventually the occupation of Japan and Germany ended. If, today, a group of Neo-Confederates managed to rise up and declare their own sovereign state somewhere in South Carolina, would we say that the Union lost the Civil War? No... that would be nuts. It would be a new chapter of history unfolding. The Civil War was over in 1865 when major combat operations ceased. If someone other than Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee want to take up the banner later... that doesn't mean this someone else has the chance to win the war for the South. The South already lost. If some rednecks waving Confederate battle flags want to bomb federal buildings in the South or terrorize black people or whatever... this doesn't mean that the war is ongoing. It's so.. SO weird how Iraq and Afghanistan are thought of. Did Alexander lose against Persia and the Achaemenid Empire because he later died and then other independent Persian states emerged? (if so, we need to go and update the Wikipedia page on Alexander the Great, because all of his wars are listed as victories in spite of the fact that he's not still alive and ruling over them to this day which makes them defeats using the logic of this page) 100.15.39.141 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was reading this and it seems like it was written by someone who was profoundly ignorant of either conflict. The War of Afghanistan ended in November 2001 when we captured every major city, and installed a Pro-U.S. Government.

Where we fumbled the ball? It wasn't in the occupation, we occupied Afghanistan for 20 years, and we could've occupied Afghanistan indefinitely anything was nothing the Taliban could've done to stop us. We lacked clear strategic goals, and just engaged in counter-terrorism operations. Afghanistan, and the culture are not really instituted to a democratic government, and we kept trying to force it on them. If it wasn't for Bin Laden, we wouldn't of been in Afghanistan at all, and after his death, we had no real reason for being there and should've left than.

To imply, we lost Iraq, is equally laughable. We devested Iraqi forces every single time we engaged in large-scale conflict. The Gulf War, lasted two months with Iraq having one of the largest militaries in the world, and in a way better strategic position to fight us. They got their butt's kicked and fell into irrelevance. The Second Iraq-War, ended in December of 2003 with the capture of Hussein, and debatably ended long before that. Once more anything after that date is an occupation, and not open conflict. Once more, we just stayed there with no real plan, or objective which is why we pulled out in 2011.

I guess my open question what would constitute a win in these situations, we stay there forever? CybereusArmy (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

My request is to change the Cherokee-American Wars to the name Chickamauga wars, and they ended in 1794 not 1795. So Chickamauga Wars from 1776-1794. Here's a couple sources for verification: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Chickamauga_Wars_(1776–94), https://mrnussbaum.com/chickamauga-war, https://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/8/1/231368/Chickamauga-Cherokee-Wars---Part-1-of.aspx TheHistorianOf354 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fandom is a big no-no (WP:FANDOM), and others doesn't look any better. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)