Talk:2014 American rescue mission in Syria

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madeline.mcclaran. Peer reviewers: Finkid221994.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arikay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Redundant article

I assume the article is meant to be about the failed 2014 rescue mission? If so, IMHO it should be deleted unless there's a lot more material, as James Foley (journalist) already contains a write-up of the event. If there's too much information to fit in the James Foley article, then we should have a new article. Alternatively, if people want this to be a standalone article, the existing cited description of the rescue attempt in James Foley (journalist) would be a better starting point than this uncited stub. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand this page to be about the title Rolf moved away from - 2014 American Intervention in Syria. Rolf deleted two sections that are not about the failed hostage rescue attempt but about threatened air strikes and reconicense flights. Then he changed the title to fit and suggests deletion. I restored the deleted material and think the title should be restored to Intervention as well, but can't figure out how to make the change. If someone thinks the article needs to be deleted, make your case. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Legacy. If this was just about the 1 rescue attempt then I could see it as a fork of the biographical article but it isn't. Unless there is objection I will move the article back tomorrow. As an aside (but not as my basis for support) this article is probably going to get a lot longer in the months to come. Juno (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So the article should be "American interventions in Syria from 2013-" (with interventions plural) or something like that? I don't yet get what's supposed to be cohesive about this article, maybe what you're looking for is a category tag rather than an article. You'll still need WP:RS calling these "interventions" if you want that to be the title; usually the way I've seen it used in this context it means something like armed interposition and the use of force to degrade a state's military ability, rather than being a catch-all term for any form of combat or overflight. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

While we definitely do need a lot more RSs the cohesive thing about this article is that its about American interventions, that happened in Syria, in 2014. There are plenty of analogous articles and its worth covering. Juno (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Article name

"the cohesive thing about this article is that its about American interventions, that happened in Syria, in 2014". OK, that clarifies things a lot. I'll change the article title to "2014 American operations in Syria". If you have WP:RS that both operations are interventions, then we can consider "2014 American interventions in Syria". If you have WP:RS that both operations are a cohesive part of a single intervention, we can go back to the current title. I still think the article isn't cohesive; is there an WP:RS that these two operations are related in some significant way? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be outrageously flippant here but do you have an RS that that both interventions are operations? Juno (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that they are interventions. Do you actually hold any doubt that they are operations? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Move to drafts

I think the article as it stands now would be deleted. The current unsourced article, is about a single "2014 intervention in Syria" that consists of a hostage rescue attempt, unrelated reconnaissance overflights that get to decide on their own whether to strike Syria without input from President Obama, a threat of airstrikes from 2013 that I guess can time-travel into 2014, and that according to the infobox consisted of fighting between the United States, the Free syrian army, Iraqi Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan, ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda, and Syria. If you agree this article needs serious work, please move it into the WP:DRAFT space and work on it some more. If you disagree we can discuss it some more, and if we still can't agree we can go to AfD. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think there's enough to support this article right now; it seems to be stitched together by WP:SYNTH and it doesn't quite work. Reconnaissance flights, which the U.S. conducts over Chinese waters, much of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Arctic as a matter of course, aren't an "intervention", nor is an isolated rescue mission to free Western hostages. President Obama reportedly thinking about airstrikes isn't an intervention, making this a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But they are, of course, recon flights that were not being carried out before. Recon flights of Syria have not been carried out before, but as of August of 2014, they are the policy of the US government, and that has been covered by RSs. Juno (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

keep the article, it needs work and more references but it is a very valid topic. The 2013 could be labeled background. The sale of weapons and other material support could be added. Rolf's move was really to delete - and that is not appropriate. This article fits beside 2014 American Intervention in Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.41.231 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Subject of the article

The content of this article is mostly unsourced and Original Research. No sources have been provided that there are continues military operations, other than the rescue operation, in Syria. Also, the article states their purpose is to defeat Assad and ISIS, which beside being unsourced is also un-encyclopidic. If and when wider confirmed operations occur we can create an over-reaching article on the subject. For now, the only confirmed operation has been the failed rescue op which this article should be about. P.S. As for the recon flights, that too had no sources. EkoGraf (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article should be merged

Please merge this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation notable enough. No merge. Removed all of the unsourced Original Research not dealing with the operation. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert of title name

First RGloucester, with your revert, you changed the title to a grammatically incorrect one. Title (your title) now says rescue missionS. What missions? There was only ONE. (This kind of edit also surprises me that its coming from you considering what a slapstick for grammatical correctivnes you are) Also, your use of the word queer is rather a violation of Wikipedia policy on civility. Second, majority consensus was already established on talk page that the article should deal only with the ONE rescue mission, if not that it should than be deleted. I already improved the article for it to only deal with the one known mission and removed all of the mostly unsourced Original Research which was a violation of WP: Synth. P.S. I would ask you to remove, post haste, the letter S from the word missions. EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is "queer" a violation of civility policy? It just means "strange" or "bizarre". That's you acting a bit queer yourself, I suppose, not knowing what words mean on a frequent basis. I shall remove the "S". I don't know how I managed to add it. Thank you for your consideration. Any further changes should take place in an RM discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the defender of the English language, as you have described yourself, isn't familier with the wide modern usage of the word Queer (a pejorative term for homosexuals). If this was still the 16th century than the word queer might still have a wide usage to term strange and bizarre things. But this is the 21st century. You should read up on it. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should leave your North American bubble, and come join us in the better part of the world. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no thanks, I'm Serb. North American or British, all same bubble to me. And even though this is called the English Wikipedia, British English doesn't have a monopoly on it.EkoGraf (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, but I'm allowed to speak privy to my own dialect. It isn't my fault if you've Americanised your mental English language. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to your own dialect, but like I said, you don't have a monopoly over Wikipedia. And you obviously don't know us Serbs if you think we are in any way Americanised. In any case, off-topic. EkoGraf (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summary, the word means strange or abnormal. In slang, the word also means homosexual. For some reason, some people [probably a minority] consider its use to describe homosexuals as offensive, though homosexuals have used it to describe themselves for a long time. It was obvious from its context in the edit summary that the meaning intended was the non-slang one. If some people found it offensive, then they should expand their English-language vocabulary - "it pays to expand your word-power".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request - 9 September 2014

2014 American rescue mission in Syria → 2014 American operations in Syria → 2014 American intervention in Syria– This article is doomed to be a short, start class article. Now that Obama is committed to "degrading and destroying ISIL" there will be surely more American operations in Syria this year. Let's reopen this article to further development and widen the scope. ~Technophant (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Outcome: request was withdrawn by requester Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This article deals with the attempted rescue operation of hostages from 4 July. Not any other operations, which I would remind you have not yet happened with this being the only known US military operation in Syria. Creating an article on potential operations that may not even happen is a violation of WP: Crystal ball. We are not here to speculate what may happen. We are here to create encyclopedic articles on historic events that did happen. IF more operations do happen than we can create a new over-arching article as you suggest, but again that wouldn't mean we should expand on this one because this event was notable enough to warrant its own article to deal with the subject of the rescue mission. EkoGraf (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – For new operations, a new article would be created. This is seperate, no doubt, from any potential future events (which are WP:CRYSTAL at the moment). RGloucester — ☎ 12:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment EkoGraf,User:RGloucester It's already confirmed that there's surveillance flights over Syria. The first confirmed airstrike could be very soon. There needs to a place to put information about these operations and soon. If there's no agreement to move then the article 2014 American operations in Syria needs to be restarted.~Technophant (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Start a new article if there is something you want to do, and let it stand-up to the notability guidelines. This article has a narrow scope. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We already told you Techno, this article is about the hostage rescue mission. If something new happens create a NEW article. However, create a new article ONLY if something happens. Saying things like The first confirmed airstrike could be very soon. is a violation of WP: Crystal, WP: OR and WP: Synthesis. An over-arching article on expanded US operations (only IF they happen) can be useful, but that would be a totally new article. This article is about a specific notable subject and it has to stay that way. As for the alleged surveillance flights, it was only reported by one unnamed U.S. official per the AP which is not really an adequate enough source to warrant a whole new article since for such a kind of subject multiple sources would be needed. EkoGraf (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Yes I know about crystalball, however since there's military aircraft in the air over Syria (as per CNN) as we speak there's no question that there's operations going on. Since there's already and article called 2014 American intervention in Iraq I would like to change my new article/move request to 2014 American intervention in Syria. I will give uniformity to names and also 'intervention' could include arms or financial assistance, not just military. Nobody has addressed the issue that this article is short and is unlikely to expand. Perhaps in 10+ years after this all over somebody will write a book or even make a movie about the rescue attempt. Perhaps for that eventualist reason this article should remain as is. ~Technophant (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case you should withdraw your request for this article to be renamed. The article's shortnes doesn't really matter. We got articles on subjects that are even shorter than this. The notability of the subject was high enough to warrant its own article. As for the intervention part, the alleged flights were so far only reported per one unnamed US official. That is still too dubious. No official confirmation has been made. If and when the US officialy starts conducting operations/flights/strikes I myself will make an article or you can create it and I will help you expand it. And no, arms and financial assistance only can not be interpreted as intervention. If that were the case we would have created a Russian intervention in Syria article three years ago. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the move request.~Technophant (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense in parallel with other articles, notably the 2014 American intervention in Iraq. Juno (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point Juno. Nobody here is denying a need for an article on American intervention IF it happens. The issue here is that this specific article, on the hostage rescue, needs to exist on its own because the event was notable enough. In any case, the move request has been withdrawn. If US bombing starts we will create an article (a new one), not before. EkoGraf (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty clear that a couple editors want to keep this little article narrow in scope to the events of 1 hour or so on the ground in Syria. If left this narrow, it will fall underneath the larger much needed 2014 American intervention in Syria article. We don't need bombing to start an article, the special forces rescue mission, surveillance flights and decision to arm Syrian rebels is enough.Legacypac (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Legacypac Interestingly, I already started the article 2014 American intervention in Syria for exactly this reason. I don't know if it will remain the compendium of information about American actions in Syria, but please do add to it if you can! Juno (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, calling all that an American intervention in Syria would be Original Research or even Synthesis since no reliable sources consider it as such. And the shortness of this operation does not make it any less notable. If I remember correctly there was a US operation in Syria back in 2007 against the insurgents which also lasted less than an hour but it still has its own article due to its notability. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent Juno I thought this article was originally called exactly that title. I don't question the notability of the rescue attempt, but feel it does belong in an article with a wider scope.Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It will be talked about in an article with a wider scope (U.S. intervention in Syria; background section) if and when we create it (if and when the assault starts). But this article itself will need to remain due to its notability. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm glad that this article exists. There was more than enough press coverage to merit a separate article for the rescue and as more information about it emerges I hope that even more content is added to it. I just wanted to see a article also cover the broader American involvement in Syria. Juno (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism Peer Review

As a service member these articles intrigue me very much because they are written without information that would require a security clearance, which would be the most important pieces of information. This article seems to do a good job giving a general idea of the scenario, with a task and purpose outlined and a brief discussion of the actions on the objective. I would be most interested to know what the large scale aftermath would have been. Since this operation was conducted in Syria, and the U.S has had such a long standing and still current conflict with Syria, even though the mission was carried out against ISIL forces it would be interesting to see if there was any fallout with the U.S-Syrian relations. Additionally, I would be interested to learn what happened to the remaining hostages that were not executed. The article identifies two hostages that were executed by the hostage takers, and one that was used in an unknown form of propaganda manipulation; but what of the other hostages that were moved? Lastly, since the country of Jordan was assumed to have been involved, I feel this could be an area that could be delved into much deeper. It is stated that it is unknown if Jordan was involved and if so to what extent, but the implications of Jordan being involved with American operations in Syria could be monumental. If Jordan was involved with this operation on the ground, provided troops, and authorized joint military intervention then that information would be crucial to a full and comprehensive understanding of this operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finkid221994 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)