Talk:US House of Representatives rejects resolution to order troop withdrawal from Syria

Review of revision 4715103 [Not ready]

Revision 4715103 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: OK, a lot to do here ranging from minute to pretty fundamental. I'll go proper order, most significant first. I. Inverted pyramid structure needs to be followed. See WN:Pyramid for guidance. Why mention the 17 Feb movement before what the AUMF resolution is? II. Contextualisation. The reader is assumed to know many things: for how long the US has been in Syria to constitute "a premature end to our mission", what H.R. 256 is, that the congressmen are all representatives, what distinguishes the 2001 from 2002 AUMFs, who are Gaetz's "900 Americans" and what 'victory' means insofar as US involvement in Syria. Probably this could be resolved by actually incorporating bits from the Insider article etc. III. Formatting. Ordinarily a reviewer could fix little mistakes, but everything from the caption to the dates to what 'R' means, also distinguishing (R-Florida), wikilinking, etc. Please see the style guide and past articles for guidance on that. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4715103 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: OK, a lot to do here ranging from minute to pretty fundamental. I'll go proper order, most significant first. I. Inverted pyramid structure needs to be followed. See WN:Pyramid for guidance. Why mention the 17 Feb movement before what the AUMF resolution is? II. Contextualisation. The reader is assumed to know many things: for how long the US has been in Syria to constitute "a premature end to our mission", what H.R. 256 is, that the congressmen are all representatives, what distinguishes the 2001 from 2002 AUMFs, who are Gaetz's "900 Americans" and what 'victory' means insofar as US involvement in Syria. Probably this could be resolved by actually incorporating bits from the Insider article etc. III. Formatting. Ordinarily a reviewer could fix little mistakes, but everything from the caption to the dates to what 'R' means, also distinguishing (R-Florida), wikilinking, etc. Please see the style guide and past articles for guidance on that. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@JJLiu112, Thank you for the feedback. Can you elaborate on the following:

The W's for the article as I see them are:

• Who: Congress
• What: Votes against H.Con.Res. 21
• When: March 8, 2013
• Where: Floor, House of Congress
• Why: “could lead to the resurgence of ISIS” (Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs)

I. Regarding the pyramid style; The Feb. 17 raid was the impetus for Gaetz's filing the resolution, which is the reason there was a vote. The paragraph about the Feb 10th & 17th raids provide "important details" (middle of the pyramid) in support of the most newsworthy info (the first two paragraphs).

The two paragraphs about the AUMF are background for the entire article because the AUMFs have been used to authorize the use of military force. They are part of a broader-but-related debate happening in Congress. However, the AUMFs are not mentioned in source articles in relation to Gaetz's writing of the resolution or the house vote on the resolution. Those paragraphs are "other general info" (bottom of the pyramid) but part of the larger debate regarding U.S. military presence in Syria. Moving the AUMF paragraphs further up in the article breaks the flow of narrow-to-broader focus. The AUMFs also represent the oldest facts of the story, while the vote result is the newest fact.

II. I don't understand how knowing how long the US has been involved in military action in Syria explains or clarifies what Meeks considers "a premature end." Knowing the mission goals would help clarify that. For example, if I say something like the following, does it help clarify what makes the withdrawal premature?

Congressman Gregory Meeks, D-New York, said “This measure forces a premature end to our mission at a critical time for our efforts." The US first bombed ISIL targets in Syria in 2014[1]

That shows the US has been militarily engaged since 2014, but doesn't clarify when we expect to end that engagement (and that is not publicly available information, at least that I'm aware of). But does it help the article to clarify why Meeks feels this would be a premature end?

Re: H.R. 256, I briefly explain it right after the first introduction of the term and I also include a link to the wiki article about it. H.R. 256 is also background info. I feel that if I go too far explaining what it is, the article drifts off point too far. Maybe a date of when Meeks voted on H.R. 256 will help make it more relevant, because he voted for H.R. 256 in June of 2021; two years ago.

"what distinguishes the 2001 from 2002 AUMFs" - It's complicated and explaining it in the context of the vote against Gaetz's resolution would further complicate and significantly lengthen the article. Instead I provided links to wiki articles explaining both. Obama used both to justify several use of military force in Syria. If I mention that, readers might wonder what Obama has to do with the article.

Re: "what 'victory' means insofar as US involvement in Syria" that is the question Gaetz proposes on his house.gov web page. He is asserting that "victory" in Syria has not been defined by the Administration and that is part of the reasoning for his resolution. McCaul disagrees and in the next paragraph I show he defines victory as "the total defeat of ISIS." The Insider article (assuming you are referring to the Business Insider article[2]) doesn't discuss what "victory" means regarding anti-ISIS operations. I list it as a source because it provides background information on AUMFs 2001 and 2002 and their history and controversy within Congress.

Re: "who are Gaetz's "900 Americans"" Those are the US military forces in Syria; "the 900 Americans who have been sent to this hellscape [Syria]"

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Congressmen vs Representatives

All Congressmen are Representatives but not all Representatives are Congressmen. Some Representatives are Senators. In the context of this article, the term Congressman is more specific and relevant because the vote (the main "what") happened in Congress not the Senate.

Does that address your concern regarding the use of the term Congressmen vs Representative?

Also, I don't see in the style guide anything about political parties or political titles such as R vs D abbreviations or representative vs congressman vs senator, etc. Can you point me to the guidance on that? I assumed WN:ABBR covered the generally-accepted R vs D abbreviations.

Thanks again for your patience...I'm still new here.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm obviously not the reviewer, but...what? "Representative" refers to a member of the House of Representative as "senator" refers to a member of the Senate; Member of Congress/Congressperson can refer to either, but more commonly refers to representatives. Heavy Water (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And, clearly, all these congressmen are representatives. Heavy Water (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of this version of the term representative: "Someone who represents others as a member of a legislative or governing body."[3] I see how I had it wrong.

But that wiki article basically says Congressman and Representative are interchangeable but "Congressman" is preferred:

For this reason, and in order to distinguish who is a member of which house, a member of the Senate is typically referred to as Senator (followed by "name" from "state"), and a member of the House of Representatives is usually referred to as Congressman or Congresswoman [emphasis added]

So even though I was wrong about the term Representative (my apologies for the confusion), the use of the term Congressman is preferred in this case. Correct?

Should I follow that convention and drop the Big D and Big R abbreviations, and format the politicians names and titles like this: "Congressman Gaetz from Florida" or maybe just "Congressman Gaetz" to avoid potential clutter?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose either Congressmen or Representatives would be fine here. But dropping the abbreviations is probably best for an international audience Heavy Water (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

How about we remove at least one of these images? They're getting pushed down into the sources section currently. Heavy Water (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I liked the layout of this article and was trying to emulate it. Though it is longer and uses landscape-oriented photos as opposed to portrait. If we remove one of the other Congressman's photo, we should probably remove both and just leave Gaetz's, right? He isn't the main "who," Congress is. But his resolution is what caused the "what." Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Heavy Water (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Is your concern regarding wikilinking too much or too little linking? I wikilinked terms that I feel provide deeper understanding of the article. For example, I wikilinked all mentioned politicians and also technical terms such as H.R. 256, AUMF, the name of the specific operation in Syria, etc.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ready for re-review

Is the article at a point now where it can be reviewed again? I believe most things have been addressed. There is still the question of wikilinks. I don't know if there are too many or too few or if its a formatting issue (curly vs square brackets), etc. Barring clarification from the original reviewer I'm not sure how to proceed on that issue. Do I resubmit it to review in order to hear back from the reviewer?

Thanks again for your help and patience!

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you feel it's ready you should resubmit to hear back. Heavy Water (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Date correction

The paragraph that begins "The resolution comes after a February 10 operation in Syria wounded four US..." needs to be corrected. It was the February 17th operation that wounded four US soldiers that prompted Gaetz to write the resolution.

The source is his house.gov web page[4], which states in part: "Rep. Gaetz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, filed the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday following a February 17th press release from U.S. Central Command..."

I'd change it, but the banner at the top of the article states not to edit it.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, appears I confused the operations. Heavy Water (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Longest, continuously used AUMF — source for statement

Regarding this edit (diff), the source for the statement regarding the longest, continuously-used AUMF is the article from the Centers For American Progress[5]. It states: "The 2001 authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, directed at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks is the longest continuously used congressional use of force authorization."

The removal of "August" was correct. I misread the source[6]. In August 2014, strikes were against Iraq (not Syria) and in September strikes were against Syria: "Later in September, after laying out plans for expanded use of military force against the Islamic State in a televised speech to the American people, the President ordered U.S. military airstrikes in Syria." My apologies.

Should I be somehow referencing things in the article to help with the review process? I know Wikinews doesn't use inline references, but do editors somehow cite sources behind the scenes for reviewers?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's OK. For a first article, this is a remarkable work. Should I be somehow referencing things in the article to help with the review process? Invisible HTML comments are sometimes used: you type (you have to use the source editor to be able to see that). Or, sometimes people give a breakdown of sources on the talk page. Any such help is greatly appreciated by reviewers, especially on an article with as many sources as this. Heavy Water (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I typically use the source editor and know how to use HTML comments. I'll be sure to do one or both of the two methods in the future. And thank you for the kind words! I was a bit worried after the first reviewer found serious problems with it. But this version—and with your help—is better Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for quote "I do not believe what stands between a caliphate..."

Regarding this diff: the source for the quote is from Gaetz's Twitter feed. In this tweet[7] he transcribes the statement he made on the House floor and he links to a video of him saying it.

Tthe statement begins around 2:20 into the video.

Again, sorry if I should be somehow referencing these things for reviewers. If there's a way to, I'm happy to do it.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Well, yeah, that isn't cited. I've removed the {{under review}} tag so you can add it. Heavy Water (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed the quote and added the source. Is the format of the source okay? I formatted it like this article: Nickey_Iyambo,_former_vice-president_of_Namibia,_dies_aged_82 Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, another reviewer has said they prefer the first words of the tweet be used as the title, but I don't think it's a problem, especially as that article was reviewed by the late Pi zero. Heavy Water (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for Operation Iraqi Freedom

The source I used was a wiki article[8], which we can't cite here.

This CRS report[9] states "On March 19, 2003, President Bush announced to the nation that the early stages of military operations against Iraq had begun and designated Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)." I'm indifferent on using the name of the operation versus what the article currently says. But if we need a good source for stating the 2002 AUMF was used to authorize the Iraq war, we can use the CRS report.

Also, in this edit[10] the statement about Obama's administration got jumbled. Maybe it should read something like this:

President Barack Obama's administration maintained that both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs justified presidential authority to use force against the Islamic State.

Again, thank you for the assist and your patience working through the sources!

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article still does say "The 2002 AUMF was originally passed to authorize the Iraq War." I still have style editing yet to do. Heavy Water (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for H.R.256 passed only House, not Senate making bill now DOA

The source I used is GovTrack[11]. It states "This bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress and was passed by the House on June 17, 2021 but was never passed by the Senate."

I am still trying to work out how much to source, without "swamping" the sources section with too many citations. Apologies that you've had to dig through this to such an extent!

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's OK. I can remove the under review tag if you want to add it. Heavy Water (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. When adding GovTrack as a source, should the date be the date the site was accessed? The site does not have the equivalent of a published date. Their recommended citation uses the access date. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. "(source accessed)" placed after the access date is the typical form, I think. Heavy Water (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Done

I got the following warning while making the edit: "Warning: This page calls Template:Infobox which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call)." I don't see the error while not in the editor. Is that a non-issue?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It is something we've been seeing for a while, but it doesn't appear to be an issue, no adverse effects. Heavy Water (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4715492 [Passed]

Revision 4715492 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well, that was another long one. I did reinclude party affiliations; I think that is useful for context. I also did some editing for redundancy and WN:PYRAMID. Overall, the best first article I've ever reviewed. @Michael.C.Wright, if you want to add the GovTrack source you mentioned and the text, you're more than welcome to in the first 24 hours after publication. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4715492 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well, that was another long one. I did reinclude party affiliations; I think that is useful for context. I also did some editing for redundancy and WN:PYRAMID. Overall, the best first article I've ever reviewed. @Michael.C.Wright, if you want to add the GovTrack source you mentioned and the text, you're more than welcome to in the first 24 hours after publication. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

I'd like to thank yourself and @Michael.C.Wright for the tireless edits. --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --Heavy Water (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback and assistance with the article and tips for navigating Wikinews.

Hope to work with you both again soon.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)