Talk:Invasion

message: Following are some suggestions for a framework.  I'm about to go on holiday, can't possibly deliver any of it this week, and lack references, so please be extra bold in ignoring/adapting the ideas!
Sections:
*Intro
:Definition.  Explain difference between a war and an invasion.  Summarise following sections.  Note that use of euphemisms by invaders is not modern.  Mention commercial and population invasions.
*Sovereignty and international law
:...
*Motivation
:...
*Military aspects
**- Preparation on both sides
:Include manipulation of public opinion, military logistics, gathering of military intelligence and use for planning, establishment of military alliances, build-up of arms and manpower, positioning of resources, advantage of surprise.
:Mention permanent defences and hasty ones, and technologies for defending various types of territory.
**- Invading & defending
:Include use of logistics, use of military intelligence, use of alliances.
:Various fighting strategies on both sides.
:Short-term effect on civilian population
**- Governing
:Different types of post-invasion governments.
*Ongoing impact
:Long-term effects on borders, cultures, population genetics, languages, and politics.
*Notable invasions and series of invasions
:Say why they are notable. There is already a list of invasions that I moved out of this article a couple of years ago.
:In contrast, examples in previous sections should be used to illustrate points and could be any of: the earliest example, the latest example, the clearest example, or the biggest example.  Beware of the most famous example, as it may not be famous on the invading side, and may be famous for different reasons on each side.
*References
:... ... ...
Changes over time should probably be throughout the article rather than a separate history section.  Pictures ...?
— Zigger «º» 14:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good outline for what the article should be, the only minor thing is that I would change the title "Ongoing effects" to either Consequences or Aftermath. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: COTW: Suggested framework

message: I thought, in an article relating to invasions, it might not be a bad idea to go over the basics before you get into famous invasions...it sort of gives an understanding of how the invasions work.  Granted, I'm no expert, but I provided a base where hopefully people can contribute more and perhaps include textbook examples. 65.9.53.125 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I'd say an article about pests should be called "Insect invasion" or something similar, maybe with a note at the top of this page alerting users where to find it. Actually, there's already an article entitled Infestation that deals with bugs, so we could just direct to that. It's small, but maybe you could improve it. If by "pathological invasion" you mean a crime similar to burglary, there's a page for that, too, at Home invasion. I think people researching invasions are most likely to be looking for the military type. Since it's the most obvious definition, I don't think it should have a qualifier in the title. Doing that just makes it harder to find. Kafziel 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since this article already has a link at the top to the disambiguation page, I added both of the articles you suggested to the list on that page. Hope that helps. Kafziel 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Too late!  The language you removed is featured on Wikipedia's front page right now. ;)  Good fix, though.  PubliusFL 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Invasion? 

message: Maybe this article should have a section like about the above^^. What u guys think? Tutmosis 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make a concrete suggestion for content. Though I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, it seems to be a too broad topic to do much justice to the intentions. I think it would be too hard to generalize on such a diverse subject, but make a try if you want.--Jens Nielsen 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath of an Invasion including positive + negative effects

message: I added an image of DDay. If anyone can find a more suitable picture for the article feel free to change it. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: It feels a bit odd on me that the list of major invasions stops at 1944. This section is for suggestions of more recent invasions. Please argue your arguments for the label 'major'. (See previous section on criteria).
:# The United States invasion of Vietnam, aka the Vietnam War. a) Many hundreds of thousands of US troops participated in the invasion and ensuing acts of war, b) resulting in a probably 2-3 million casualties over nearly two decades. c) In much of the world this conflict figures prominently as a one if not the major since WW2. I'm sure the suggestion will provoke some consternation from descendants of one of the warring parties, but feel free to offer examples of bigger invasions if you know of any. --Jens Nielsen 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised that Vietnam wasn't listed.  I was taught it was an invasion.  There doesn't seem to be a raucous debate going on.  Shouldn't there maybe be a section about what is thought to be an invasion but isn't?-BiancaOfHell 11:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being taught it doesn't make it so. The history of the US escalation pretty well shows that it was a response to increases of troops by North Vietnam, not the other way around, and that the initial contingents had been there 10 years before the first "combat troops" were sent. Not an "invasion" according to this article. Which brings up your second point. The section you propose does exist--here, on this page. However to include it in the article would be purely semantics, as I just illustrated.--Buckboard 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for post 1945 invasions 

message: I just did a britannica search and there are a bunch of invasions. I'm not a history buff, so I'm not sure which are important enough to list. A similar search for naval invasion yields some results as well. Hope this helps. P.S. What about adding Bay of Pigs Invasion? Gflores Talk 19:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of invasions 

message: For this article, are we being British or American? The latest copyedit leaves a mix of both. I have no problem with being British here; the Brits have invaded (and been invaded by) a lot more places than the US. On the other hand, it looks like the bulk of the article thus far is written in American English. Not that it's hard to fix that. I'm really neutral on this subject, so if there is anyone out there who is really nationalistic about spelling, speak up. Kafziel 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point but they have only been around for a little while, give them a few more years and they will get into the swing of it /sigh. However I think we should be consistent throughout, and either adopt one or other forms of spelling, and not have both. I think there is something to this effect in the style guides and it is something really we should try to adhere to. Sjc 11:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The age old spelling question 

message: In the case of the historical examples section (or any list of historical events) I think linked dates are good because it allows readers to quickly put them into context with other events. It also serves as an internal cite, in a way, because readers can confirm that those events did, indeed, happen during that year and in certain cases see the exact date. I have re-inserted the links for the dates for those reasons. Kafziel 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked dates 

message: states that limited terrority is involved.  On the contrary, land invasions can and have involved extensive territory.  Consider the Nazi invasion of Russia, the Hun invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe, the Mongol invasions of Europe and Asia, Alexander the Great's invasion of Persia.
:I agree. There's no reason to think the territory gained is small. Also, "small" compared to what? Small compared to the land mass of Asia? Small compared to my backyard? There doesn't seem to be a basis for it. I'm going to change that. Kafziel 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed the statement that intelligence is less necessary; I'm not sure where that came from, but as any grunt can tell you, it is no less necessary to have intel on enemy troop movements when you're in a hummer than it is when you're on an aircraft carrier. It's probably even more important, because the average infantryman doesn't have radar. :) Kafziel 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: land invasion

message: Okay, so the COTW has been over for some time now, and I was thinking about nominating this to become a featured article. It's a solid article, it's stable (no edit wars, minimal controversy), it has good photos and formatting, and it covers the subject matter well. The way I see it, it can't hurt to try because at least we can get feedback. Actually, the biggest reason for opposition I predict will be that we don't have any external references in the article. That's really just because all of the sources of the article come from other wikipedia articles. While that doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me, and external sources are not explicitly required by the guidelines, some voters might want to see some external cites to help the article meet the accuracy/verifiability requirement. So I just wanted to see if anyone was interested in helping me add some external supporting documentation before I nominate this as a feature. Kafziel 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first. We need to have a peer review. You can set that up if you like. I know that at the present time this article wouldn't be featured because it has no references, so someone will need to do that. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. I've added some of my references and hopefully some of the other contributors can add some as well. In the meantime, I guess I'll submit it to peer review so we can get some feedback on anything else that needs improvement. Kafziel 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: *Just want to let everyone that I put notes into the page. I tried to follow the same way they were done on  WW2 but if you know that it's wrong be bold and fix it for me. Oh and if it is wrong let me know on my talk so I can do it right next time. RENTAFOR LET? 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Way to go, everyone. It's good to know the system works.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: in the new section on Persia, there is the following link:
Persia,
when I click on this, I go to first page of the article on Persia.  Was this the intent or something else?  If something else, I don't know how to fix it.   Thanks Hmains 20:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like somebody, in the ever troublesome pursuit of political correctness, changed the "BC"s in the link to "BCE"s, thereby making the link not work properly. I've changed it back and it works now. Thanks! Kafziel 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persia 

message: Am I the only who think the wikilinks in the intro are excessive? War? Who's going to get to this page and not know what a war is? Punishment? Radio? Transportation? They seem pointless. I know I'm a little bit deletionist when it comes to internal links, but all that blue in the intro makes it seem cluttered to me. I could see putting war, oppression, rebellion, etc. in the "see also" section, but I don't know why they need to be linked in the intro. 
I also don't see why "genocide" should be replaced by "democide"; the examples aren't meant to cover every possibility, and genocide is certainly well-established and much more commonly used. It seems needlessly esoteric to use the latter. Kafziel 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good article. Time to leave it.  Given all the linking (excessive maybe, but nice in many ways--links are what makes new/unexpected knowledge/insight happen) that is everywhere in wikipedia, any attempt to delete links will be defeated in detail by all the other editors who will notice that links are missing and add them back in--throughout the years that the article will exist.   Thanks Hmains 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it doesn't bother anyone else, it's okay with me. Kafziel 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks, etc. 

message: Is an invasion really only between armed forces (which are described in their article as working for a state]] invading another geopolitical bodies? Are we saying that any tribes that took one another's lands, for example, were not committing invasions because there were not defined geopolitical nations and borders? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental questions

message: :Another record was set in more recent years: beginning on March 20 and ending on April 15, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the fastest invasion in history.
The citation for this is a one-sentence intro to a Fox News story, with no details given. It's also pretty impressively silly. Even if we just restrict this to invasions of whole countries (there's no shortage of quick invasions of islands!), there's plenty of counterexamples:
*Battle of the Netherlands, 1940 - attack on 10th May, occupation began on the 17th
*Operation Weserübung, 1940 - attack on 9th April, occupation of Denmark begun that day.
*Invasion of Yugoslavia, 1941 - attack on 6th April, occupation begun 17th April
*Battle of Greece, 1941 - attack on 6th April, completely occupied 30th April
The last one is about the same length as the Iraqi invasion, but the others are clearly quicker. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm removing it. Kafziel 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fastest invasion in history" 

message: I understand that these invasions may be important today but in the long run these invasions are not special. If Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afganistan, or even the German blitzkriegs arn't listed here (including Barbarossa, the Largest invasion in history) why should these invasions be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCpl (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. They were not included in the original version of the article (as agreed in another discussion above), and I will remove them. Kafziel 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United States invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

message: This term is a historical and cultural anomaly (its article notes it is solely a US term). Why is it being used? Additionly, the concept is subject to change. As such, it would be more accurate to re-title the article Applications regarding non-state combatants and similarily change other references to 4GW (To presever the link an aside would be made along the lines of, 'this phenomena has been described as Fourth generation warfare by William S. Lind'.) WRT the combatants non-state status: I acknowledge that sometimes these combatants are sponsored/owned by the/a state; however, the definition hinges on a lack of state control, which is evident in all entities under discussion in this section. 
Despite general consensus on this page that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not notable enough to be included, it provides a well known contempory case study of the debate with which this section is concerned. Including a passage using this conflict as an example of the two positions woulc be helpful.
Also, the statement 'the concept of fourth generation warfare is quite new' is erroneous. The debate regarding how to deal with small decentralised combatants who use asymetric tactics can be seen in how the Romans dealt with the German tribes: the concept is not new, this particular expression of it is.  
It is my intention to wait two weeks and to implement these changes, unless there is significant opposition. Inane Imp 11:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Generation Warfare

message: This is hugely erroneous: "Lasting slighly more than a century, these conquests brought much of the ancient world under the banner of Islam and represent the zenith of Muslim political power."
Seriously, Muslim presence in al-Andalus(Spain) 711-1492. Likewise Muslims are still holding the lands in the Arab World, Iran, Asia minor...etc. Seriously I can't believe such a huge error couldn't be spotted earlier. 213.42.2.21
:An occupation isn't the same as an invasion. The invasions themselves did not take 700 years. Kafziel Talk 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim conquests section... 

message: This section is POV and should be removed, It aslo has little to do with the artical because it's not really about a military invasion. LCpl 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm are you kidding? That was a massive conquest movement that spanned the entire globe, spread christianity and created the basis for the global western centered society. It was very similar to the Muslim conquests except that it had a lot more actors and was much larger in scope and sustained duration and eclipsed anything in histoy before it. Please review the definition of Invasion as per the article as well to see why it qualifies. We can identify and fix "NPOV" concerns if that is your primary objective but I think it reads fairly balanced.--Tigeroo 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that it was not an important event in world history,but it's not about a specific invasion. Good examples of the European Christians conquering other area's are already mentioned in this artical namely The Crusades and the Conquest of the Aztec Empire. If you want to more about a specific invasion go right on ahead.LCpl 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For my money POV has nothing to do with it. You said it yourself--it was a "movement", not an "invasion" (although it may have involved one or more invasions to spread the movement). Same with the Moslem conquests, and the Mongols. These are all on a larger conceptual scale than an invasion, just as an invasion is a larger concept than a raid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.238.92.62 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Colonialism and Imperialism

message: This section contains a direct contradiction:
"During the 16th and 17th centuries, Britain, France and Holland established their own overseas empires ...
"Towards the 17th and 18th century the Germans and the French also joined in...."
Was this second refference to the French meant to be Italy perhaps, some other nation? France was definately one of the first, along with Britian, its colonies were well established when the Germans came along. I am removing refference to the French in the second part, but there is probably another country along with Germany that was intended to be there.
I am also removing the last paragraph of this section. The pros and cons and results of Imperialism are not relevant to this article. This is about invasion, so I'm taking the superflous part out; if readers want info, they can follow the link.          Harley peters 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the Imperialism paragraph at the end 

message: I am sorry to say but, i thought i will check through this article. To see if i can mostly agree. On general terms one can, although one might wonder if there is a need for the term very much outside post-blockprinting media-analysis. (terms like naval operations, violation of souvereignity, are often more precise). Anyway the article must be thoroughly POV because the first block of text is:" an invasion can be used to end a war...." now that, may coincedentually actually have happened, a few times, but it is not an obvious use or direct effect of any invasion. Ofcourse its propagandatory charming to pose D-Day(since that is the unnamed POV we are talking about here probably) as the end of a war, or the second great war. But technically anzio has been invaded , sicilia and the south of france, in a similar manner and with the exact same purpose of 'winning' a war. I suggest that will be the replacement for 'ending' a war here. 
Also i think ending a war is a term that should be preserved to settling peace,
not to any kind of ongoing military operations.
Winning a war, obviously is a true target of almost any invasion. Although prolonging a war has been another reason, but yeah, who wants to know that...(I do)212.187.41.61 11:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment unrelated to the above

message: Someone has changed the first paragraph to -
An Paris Hilton is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, 
generally with the objective...
I tried to edit the page to fix this, but when I looked in the editor it still read "An invasion is..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.101.104 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was most likely due to that it was fixed between you loaded this article and when you clicked "edit". Vandalism of much frequented articles is fixed quickly most of the times. Jeltz talk 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism (word "Invasion" replaced by "Paris Hilton") 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Either to this name, or to military invasion. My reasoning is explained above, but my general reasoning is that one-word article titles need to be absolutely unambiguous. For example: campaign, survey, assessment are similar one-word titles that have a range of meanings in the English language. In my opinion, invasion on its own can mean too many things, so clarification is needed. I would support invasion being a permanent redirect to this article if it gets moved, providing people periodically disambiguate the other uses of invasion that are linked here. Otherwise, I am prepared to help out with fixing the around 600 links, and to help with periodic dabbing of invasion as a dab page instead. Carcharoth 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Either to this name, or to military invasion. My reasoning is explained above, but my general reasoning is that one-word article titles need to be absolutely unambiguous. For example: campaign, survey, assessment are similar one-word titles that have a range of meanings in the English language. In my opinion, invasion on its own can mean too many things, so clarification is needed. I would support invasion being a permanent redirect to this article if it gets moved, providing people periodically disambiguate the other uses of invasion that are linked here. Otherwise, I am prepared to help out with fixing the around 600 links, and to help with periodic dabbing of invasion as a dab page instead. Carcharoth 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # The military meaning of the term is overwhelmingly the most commonly used one, and is thus suitable for primary-meaning disambiguation. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Currently the article says: "Complete pacification of an occupied country can be difficult, and usually impossible, but popular support is vital to the success of any invasion". I think that this needs qualifying because it is true only under current International humanitarian law. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. -- "They make a desert and call it peace" Calgacus by Tacitus. Also (to take one example of many), the Invasion of Germany and the Debellatio was successful without the initial support of the occupied population and without the introduction of the Morgenthau Plan. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant 

message: Please read below from the project talk.
Can you source the definition of an invasion? Its not referenced in the article. Most invasions are in fact Offensives, and the occupations are called 'garrisoning' by militaries, though it better represents the view of the people who are opposing the garrisoning of course.
I refer to the etymology of the word which is:
1439, from M.Fr. French: invasion (12c.), from L.L. invasionem (nom. invasio) "an attack, invasion," from L. invasus, pp. of invadere "go into, fall upon, attack, invade," from in- "in" + vadere "go, walk" (see vamoose). Invade is 1491, from invadere.[1] Hence to say that a "invasion was a walk-over" would be to say it twice :o)
I propose the article be moved to Offensive (Military) for which there is no article despite the many more Offensives there have been in military history then 'invasions'. The Offensive also happens to be a major Principle of War, so its not just my invention.-- mrg3105mrg3105   07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such thing as a Military invasion - its an Offensive 

message: Intervention by a foreign power in the civil war of another country, at the request of one of the sides, does not constitute an invasion does it?  (e.g.  US involvement in Vietnam or Cuban & South African intervention in the Angolan Civil War)  Some folks, having read the definition here, are interpreting these interventions as "invasions", so some clarification might be necessary. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign intervention in a civil war

message: The section on Hungary's invasions seems to be a list of "raids".  I cleaned it up a little (grammar, focus, etc.), but someone with knowledge of the subject might want to see if it's a legitimate section for this article.  There have been a lot of edits from an editor pushing Hungarian importance in history, etc., and this might have been one of them. - Special-T (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungary 

message: This article should be re-created under the name of Military Invasion, since formally its wording is focused only on a type of invasion that is not generic. Thank you. --84.236.162.169 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion is not properly Military invasion 

message: A section to differentiate this article from the article on immigration would be useful. 121.45.172.20 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Invasion & Immigration 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Military intervention and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Military intervention until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Gaetr (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military intervention" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Invasion 116.75.195.157 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social science