text:
Talk:List of invasions

Israeli invasion of Gaza
The Gaza strip invasion in 2009 by Israel happened on 3 January. I added it. --SamB135 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of invasions was moved from Invasion ca. 12 Mar 2004. See older history there. -- Zigger

"Israel-Lebanon War" I added that Lebanon invaded Israel as well, as Hezbollah soldiers crossed into Israel, sparking the war. Hezbollah is a militia sanctioned by the Lebanese gov't, and whose political arm sits in Cabinet. They're irregular forces, but they are certainly a military of Lebanon. 99.226.47.35 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

" 1099 invasion of Jerusalem by Norman forces (First Crusade)" but Norman were not the only people who made the Crusade... Arabe says Franj for Frank Treanna 07:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that the entry for the 1982 invasion of the Falklands by Britain should be removed. The Falklands belonged to Britain, so they hardly "invaded" them when they fought the Argentinian military. Tabun1015

Your rationale is reasonable, however the main article says "reasons for invasion have included restoration of territory lost in the past". So the territory was first lost and then restored by the British invasion. This is consistant with the rest of the list --211.31.174.115 11:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Did the Yom Kippur War qualify as an invasion? Plasma east 02:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

invasion of US by Britain
American Revolutionary War: how is this an invasion?
 * This entry has now been removed. -- Zigger «º» 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

invasion of Russia by allies
Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War

do any of the activities mentioned in this article constitute an invasion? Russians would appear to think so.

 * Added to the list. -- Zigger «º» 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Invasions within Russia

Civil wars are not included in the 'Big 4' invasions of Russia or invasions by Poland, Sweden, France and Germany or Parts of the following large-scale invasions Smolensk War (During the Time of Troubles and part of the Livonian Wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Alliance or wars waged within the 30 years war which became the first northern war or the Russo-Polish War followed by continuous russian victories), Northern War (Sweden-Denmark alliance the baltic wars, great northern war), Campaign of 1812 (Napoleonic wars), and Barbarossa (Axis Powers).

This along with the crimean war, the german battle of ice (Crusades), and mongol invasion were excluded because these territories were most likely changed and regained as part of russia in the past or at some point. Meaning they lost and then won indirectly or not, by a huge battle for territory...eventually losing in a battle reemergence. They were not permanent invasions, more like occupations for invading territories while the big 4 were planned invasions with equally large armies. No large army has ever invaded Russia successfully or reached the capital of Moscow successfully for that matter mostly because of weather and landscape or the culmination of intention for mass genocide indirectly. These were small invasions, or indirect invasions as opposed to its full scale invasion at the time. They are disputed, but I think Mongol invasions were more of an expansion because no sides could catch up hence conquering, never beaten, scorched earth ala alexander the great in other territories (considered full-scale in other territories). They only won one battle, and were annihilated in the process. '' -Most Modern invasions are occupations because of the unfair advantage of weaponry or sides competing against one another. They would fall under an indirect invasion, like an occupation instead of a full-scale 'star wars' invasion. This is an interesting fact, because an invasion with an equally strong side would create a deciding factor. It can be dangerous to so-called Society or a way of life and is unpredictable. Many other territorial invasions or Modern wars were predictable (when one side conquers without losing until he is weak and beaten) sad to say. WWII doesnt fall in this category because large wars for or in territory were won and lost changing policy and events in the future forever. ''

Definition of Invasions

 * Territorial Invasion (Indirect, short-term or disputed invasions) - battles, skirmishes, tiny 'blitzkrieg' tactics such as guerrilla warefare, incursions, pillage and plunder or small raids resulting in indirect occupations. No competing armies on either side.  Resulting in no significant territorial expansion or country-wide invasion.

 * Full-Scale Invasion - enormous field battles within the territory with equally large armies facing off against one another. Resulting in Expansion, usually enormous and permanent. Both are results of insurgency.

eg Battle of the Kalka River was countered by the Russian victories in the Battle of Kulikovo and the Great stand on the Ugra river in the Mongolian Invasion. The Crimean war was countered by the Russo-Turkish War for a small portion of land. A successful modern invasion (after the Roman Empire or the Medieval era) of large armies with permanent territory gain would be the invasions of the middle-east by the ottoman empire against western europe or the union invasion of the csa in the american civil war and previous american invasions. These wars would be called full-scale except they were competing for small portions of land with only two large battles. The Mongols would have won, except they were competing for land with only two wars fought within the territory as well, and the first war destroyed there numbers, hence ransacking, and pillaging like the Carthaginians did with no territory gain. It must have been chaotic. Anyways, I consider two fronts, a territorial invasion. As for the definition, more than two large fronts (with 10,000+ regime within territory) is disputed as full scale invasion.

Other

As for the post above this one. American Revolution is a full-scale invasion indirectly not-like the Mongol one. It was really because it was a competition for territory. I consider the American Indian Wars an invasion though too because it changed the landscape. There were like 3 armies, and the Indians were considerably turkish. The indians also joined sides (usually with the french) as well. Anyways it was an invasion because it was a precurser to the American Civil War (american indian wars). Anything American is considered skirmishes, field battles or hit and run tactics hence guerrilla warefare a turkish trait taken from the Mongols so it can be disputed I think (small skirmishes in the countryside, tiny fronts, feuds, countryside battles..vice versa or easternized traits of old) I consider it an invasion because the 1.)landscape changed 2.)large battles occurred with competing countries. Turkish and Greek-Arabic entanglements are deep rooted in history anyways. Hence it culminated into the Civil War which set off the Mexican-American War or constant chain reactions of one war to the next eg rapid growth. American Expansion itself is an invasion or American settlements is an ongoing process of colonization {Imperialism} of the remaining imperialistic powers. The Indians just lost so its not considered a war (see post above). Christians killed government officials regularly during expansion. What makes Russia so interesting is that it is far too old to know how it was established. So far as I know, any civilization established by war will be destroyed by it. The Romans were not even established by war either but rather for getting even for it. Most european nations were equally made the same, by total rampage such is Poland and France/Germany for its small kingdoms of royal families established (establishments of society and culture basically Frankreich WAS Germania). Sadly, America was a country established by War. A real test to countries like the United States in the coming hundreds of years. We all know the fate of Carthage.--Murriemir (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This question of what technically constitutes an invasion is an interesting one. Discussions like this keep me on Wikipedia. There are dictionary definitions of course. But dictionaries fail to describe subtleties and nuances. For example:

It seems to me that the answers depend upon who is recording the history and censoring the media.The names of wars tend to reflect the mindsets of those who have the most to benefit by naming them. For example, to the British, the war between the colonists of the 13 colonies was a rebellion. To the colonists it became a war of independence.In recent times, most of the world viewed the incursion into Iraq by the US-lead Coalition of the Willing (a strange name, as if they weren't willing, they wouldn't be in coalition) as an invasion. But at the time the US called it a war of liberation, or a crusade for democracy.In common parlance 'invasion' denotes unjust aggression. Which, of course, is not always the case. I think we should only include military events in the list which are popularly termed invasions, citing sources. We should bear in mind however that different states and peoples have different names for wars, depending on how they view it. And we should note that in the list.--Gazzster (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, is armed suppression of what is perceived as an insurrection against a lawfully constituted state an invasion? (Eg, American Revolutionary War, the Chechnyan war -if I spelt it right-,the English counter-attack against Prince Charles Stuart in 1742).
 * Is the incursion into territory to which the aggressor has, or claims to have,a lawful claim, an invasion? Or when the aggressor has a mandate in international law to act? (Eg., the incursion of King Henry V into France to claim the throne, the 1991 Iraqi attack upon Kuwait- Iraq claimed it was part of Iraq-, and the subsequent counter-attack on the part of the US and its allies, mandated by the UN)
 * Is an armed incursion to attempt to expel an occupying power an invasion? (Eg., the UK counter-attack against Argentina in the Falklands)
 * Is an incursion into the territory of one side during a civil war an invasion? Can a state invade its own sovereign soil?

These were skirmishes, occupations, not full-scale invasions. The Americas had competing armies for changed territory so it was a full scale invasion having that it changed the landscape forever. Competing for small portions of land is not a large invasion. So you're right. 1.)Large Armies that occupy territory without governance is a political or insignificant historical invasion 2.)Large armies who invade territory and in doing so change the landscape is an invasion. So the first phrase was Civil Wars. Civil Wars arent invasions unless they change territory. That would be an occupied invasion, incursion, (because civil wars always require neutrality between opposing powers within its territory) etc. or if one side constantly wins without any hostility, then its not a full-scale invasion but an occupation as was the case with Kuwait and Mongolia in the Rus. Mongolia is not a full-scale invasion because they only encountered an opposing force once and lost two great battles. Rome in England or Caesars Rome, 100 Years' War and many others such as below I consider are full-scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.240.174 (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, some argument worth considering there. But how do you judge a 'full scale invasion' or a 'large army'? After all, it depends a lot on historical assessment. In the middle ages, for example, European armies rarely numbered over several thousand. Yet even these could 'change the landscape forever' as you neatly put it. Henry V's force that defeated the French at Agincourt in 1415 was tiny, even by the standards of the time, but it did change the political landscape of France on a grand scale. In more recent times, the occupation of Grenada by US troops was almost trivial in military terms, yet to Granada it was a momentous event with profound consequences. We should also note that what we often call 'invasions' do not need to involve great forces in a short period. Australia, for example, was occupied by European settlers incrementally, over a period of a century or more. There were pitched battles against the indigenous peoples, but never more than a handful of troops was ever deployed in one location. Similarly, the invasion of Britain by the Angles and Saxons was gradual, and not involving large forces. So I would suggest again we go by what are named invasions in popular and scholarly parlance.--Gazzster (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern Warefare

You are correct thats a territorial incursion or a small invasion, the new term would be occupation or illegal invasion. That is illegal as much as I know I have mongolian blood flowing through me do I know what a full-scale invasion by equal powers and an illegal occupation or invasion is. If there is no force equal to its army there is no injustice. Worldwar II being a perfect example of illegal occupations which lead to an invasion. The invasion was condemned but at fault of the western world because of industrial power, like the french and its farming boom during the small ice age. As much as I know you are listing territorial occupations to me in my eyes. Large wars have both invasions and territorial forces, occupations or what is known as illegal invasions. A universal law states one must be equal to another, or to know thy enemy for a full-scale invasion to occur. Occupations can come and go, they can end and start. They can change the landscape, for instance the Crusades are made up of many illegal occupations ...the political term when a country becomes mobile before an invasion or when its mobile..not industrial mobilization or armament..when one side tries to keep up with the other in economy during wartime...grrr cant remember. Invasions are permanent so they DO 'incur permanent law, and a way of life in its civilization. The Iraq war by no means is an invasion because I dont see corporations around the corner and I def dont see Iran, or a communist state way of life in germany in that matter. The Vietnam war was an invasion that failed and changed the Vietnam language forever...yet historically it still failed (backing up my argument about a successful modern full-scale invasion). Modern Americans (USM) tend to try and do the impossible, only getting the worst scenario and as far as I know never winning. Any nation who wins in militarizing, or in mobile armament(see 100 years war) carries out a successful full-scale invasion. The Cold War, a failed occupation because the west is now the east, and there is no permanent fixture upon the landscape. You seem to be repeating small incursions for little territory. There can not be a successful small invasion without a large one (for example: if you count the invasion of Cypress by Turkey neither side invaded the country, hence Greece is not speaking turkish, turkey is not a larger country. basically it stole cypress from greece followed by the end of the grecian civil war which still wasnt an invasion but a strategic fascist victory or part of the wwII fullscale invasions of territory). You can have a large army, it wont be an invasion though if an equally large army doesnt put up a fight. That's like opening a door to let a criminal in, it just works as an predictable occupation (illegal invasion, or bullyism). The real lie here is Livonia, responsible for european expansion of civilization and the so called suburb, any expansion leads to war this is a fact (albeit I don't totally respect the turks for achieving greatness in expansion or excelling in architecture during this time in europe, livonia was or is dangerous at this time from the time of christ). Tactical warfare is dominated in the 20th century due to technology and terrain, such is the example in the Lebanse-Isreal ware of 2006. It looks to me as illegal occupation, or gain for territory. As for the question, Russia is in a position of expansion of which Israel was in a few thousand to 6000 years ago. I;m not going to list every war in the 20th ce, see. In general, people would learn alot from Mohamet's full scale invasions of taking apart the Roman Empire, or creating the middle-east and Europe at the same time. Byzantine-Arab wars was the biggest invasion i can think of, along with the ancient Indian wars such as Kuresaka and a few persian ones which made history. I look at conquests the same way as occupations, an dismantling or expansion of economy, anyhow (war or not japan spread throughout mongolia all the way to russia when a great empire or world country around bce). Mass migrations are also ruled out, being civilian and nature born, without cause for conflict but ongoing chain reaction lasting for decades past (eg southern great migration of the civil war still ongoing today). Whilst in recent times, I would say the Ottoman empire and russian wars were smaller offshoots with larger territory for country. So the muslim conquests could be an occupation of a mass scale to say the least, not political, and an explosion of karma at the same time. Wikipedia has the right idea, to put every invasion up, I just think there are large ones and small ones.--64.9.234.1 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

1654 and 1938
1.I am curious: given that the Russians captured about half of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1654, why that cannot be considered an invasion?
 * They didn't capture it. They briefly overran the territory of the country which was involved in oppressing the Russian brethren in Ukraine. --Ghirla | talk 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Germans did not capture the Soviet territory permanently either in 1941, yet nobody sane would not consider Operation Barbarossa an invasion. The criterion that an invasion only occurs if territory is captured permanently is just silly.  Balcer 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

2.Poland did coerce Czechoslovakia into surrendering a small piece of its territory in 1938 (the Cieszyn area, about 1% of the area of 1938 Czechoslovakia) but no historical sources call this event an invasion. So, until sources are provided that specifically use the term Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia, I will continue to remove the reference to that term (see No original research). Balcer 14:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "If that is not an invasion then what was it? A friendly visit?" - using your friend Halibutt's argumentation from Talk:Cieszyn. --Ghirla | talk 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Remember, No original research, which was my main objection here. As you cannot provide even one English language source which uses that term, I will remove that reference. Look, there are plenty of instances in history when a larger country A coerces a smaller country B to give up a piece of its territory.  If this is done by agreement and without fighting, it is usually not considered an invasion.

 * BTW, believe me, I personally consider the Cieszyn episode one of the more dishonourable events in Polish history and it is not my intention to whitewash it. But it was not an invasion. Balcer 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Plus, let's not forget that an invasion is an invasion even if the invader has the best of intentions. Thus people commonly use the term Invasion of Iraq by America in 2003, even though the USA believes it overthrew Saddam Hussein to spread democracy and other good things. So the argument that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in 1939 but instead was "liberating" just does not wash. Balcer 15:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in 1939, please discuss this on the talk page of the main Polish September Campaign first, before introducing changes which contradict it here. Balcer 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer and Ghirlandajo as to Soviet Union in 1939 let's just see original documents. We are in luck since they are available: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns061.htm No. 253 of September 3 BERLIN, September 3, 1939-6:50 p. m. Received MOSCOW September 4, 1939-12:30 a. m. Very Urgent! Exclusively for Ambassador. Strictly secret! For Chief of Mission or his representative personally. Top secret. To be decoded by himself. Strictest secrecy! We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish Army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the area that was established as German sphere of interest at Moscow under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would be not only a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well. In this connection please determine whether we may discuss this matter with the officers who have just arrived here and what the Soviet Government intends their position to be. RIBBENTROP --- http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns069.htm In today's conference at 4 p. m. Molotov modified his statement of yesterday by saying that the Soviet Government was taken completely by surprise by the unexpectedly rapid German military successes. In accordance with our first communication, the Red Army had counted on several weeks, which had now shrunk to a few days. The Soviet military authorities were therefore in a difficult situation, since, in view of conditions here, they required possibly two to three weeks more for their preperations. Over three minion men were already mobilized. I explained emphatically to Molotov how crucial speedy action of the Red Army was at this juncture. Molotov repeated that everything possible was being done to expedite matters. I got the impression that Molotov promised more yesterday than the Red Army can live up to. Then Molotov came to the political side of the matter and stated that the Soviet Government had intended to take the occasion of the further advance of German troops to declare that Poland was falling apart and that it was necessary for the Soviet Union, in consequence, to come to the aid of the Ukrainians and the White Russians "threatened" by Germany. This argument was to make the intervention of the Soviet Union plausible to the masses and at the same time avoid giving the Soviet Union the appearance of an aggressor.

So we can see it was indeed a major military operation, and talk about liberation of ethnic minorites is just a pretext made up by Soviet Union as admitted by Molotov himself. --Molobo 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

timeline
usualy list start in the ancient era en and and in the modern era right or am I wrong ?

 * This is probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Timeline, but Timeline Europe and Graphical timeline of our universe are other examples in Wikipedia of vertical timelines using a downward metaphor for earlier dates. For this particular list, the sequence has the advantage of placing the more recognised recent events at the top for immediate viewing, while the older events, which will remain less comprehensive due to less historical records, are at the end. -- Zigger  «º» 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Can Croatia's Operation Storm be counted as an invasion? In 1995 in launched a mass operation against a brakeaway country that was under a UN-protectorate; officially its territory but wanting independence - the "Republic of Serbian Krajina". The Operation resulted with the total move of the wholesome population of that state, including government and armed forces which were utterly anihalated. The Croatian Armed forces continued to chase the fleeing faction into Bosnia and Herzegovina, fighting deeper (another invasion?) another brakeaway separatist bit with the help of another domestic faction (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina), but from another country (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - the "Serb Republic"; seizing a large part of its territory and martially anihalating yet another seperatist Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity - "West Bosnia".

Can this be counted an invasion, taking the facts that it was trying to resotre its international borders and the fact that these entities were unrecognized? --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 * From the current Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska and related articles, there was no international recognition of sovereignty for these regions, so there was no international border and therefore no international invasion. Related discussion is at Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina and Talk:Republika Srpska, which is where consensus on recognition should be established, or try editing the RSK/RS articles adding references.  -- Zigger  «º» 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The two weren't internationally recognized, but they indeed were partially recognized. Then again, why isn't a military an "invasion" if it invades another entity and a brutal war campaign follows? Just before the modern world, there were no international recognitions - but invasions up to the Ancient World are listed in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The sections with ancient invasions will never be as comprehensive as recent sections, and as the the list grows they may be split out to a separate list with separate criteria for a number of reasons.  (Currently the listed ancient invasions mostly relate to notable territorial/imperial expansion.)  The actions that follow an invasion are not relevant to this list.  The RSK and RS articles and the Dayton Agreement (with the full text linked from that article) all describe the regions as entities.  The Dayton Agreement clearly distinguishes between "sovereign independent States within their international borders" and component "Entities", despite the ability of those entities to be represented as parties to the Agreement.  Hopefully a more detailed discussion of "partial recognition" would be welcomed at the relevant articles' talk pages.  -- Zigger  «º» 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 * But lets say (hypothetically speaking) Serbia invades Kosovo with a full-scale military operation ("invasion") bent on securing (restoring) control of every inch of the territory (a lot of people die in the war; even more refugees, the same horrible thing yet again, blah, blah, blah...). Would that Operation be listed here? --PaxEquilibrium 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I have removed a reference to the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki from the list of WW2 invasions. The atomic bombings where air raids, not invasions. Because the bombings of these two cities are the only use of atomic weapons in combat thus far in human history, they do carry an unusual degree of historical significance, but not so much that the very definition of the word "invasion" can be changed to encompass them. GutterMonkey 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Somebody put Hiroshima and Nakasaki back in the list of WW2 invasions. They do not belong there. I have deleted them again, and would ask whoever thinks they should be there to explain their reasoning. GutterMonkey 08:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * They were re-added, along with a bunch of other air raids, and I've just removed them. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Any air raid technically constitutes an invasion, as it entails an invasion of a sovereign state's airspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.186.1 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor not an invasion
By the same logic as above, the Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor was just that - an air raid! Not by any stretch of the imagination an invasion. I have deleted it. This is an easy case, but I think this problem of definition fatally flaws this list which should probably be deleted. Kim dent brown 13:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

good call, it was an attack. A massive attack or a strategic strike, not quite a war or a battle either.--66.81.51.95 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Pearl Harbor to the list, it's an invasion - even by the definition at the top of this page: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invade?s=t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.161.234 (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Invasion of Thailand by Vietnam?
I am very confused by the 1979–1988 invasions of Thailand by Vietnam entry, which redirects to the History of Thailand since 1973. I don't think Thailand was invaded by Vietnam at all during the Vietnam War (unless you count refugees.) On the other hand Thailand sent a small task force into Vietnam, which I am not sure if it can be counted as an invasion either. The only major conflict that happened in Thailand during the time was the battle between the government and the Communist Party of Thailand, which consist mostly of Thai revolutionaries/guerrillas. Of course, since I'm a Thai myself, my "official" history book may not be accurate (this humiliating defeat never made it into Thai history books.) Still, if no one provide any evidence, I'll delete it. - DTRY 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IP editors have been inserting all sorts of Vietnam-related stuff to this page which aren't actually invasions. Be bold in removing stuff that strikes you as blatantly inaccurate. Cheers, cab 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusion in terminology
There's a lot of confusion here. The current definition is : "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." However, such action must always be placed in context. The terms "invasion", "offensive war", "attack against enemy territory" do not necessarily signify the same thing! The war started by Hitler's Germany against the Soviet Union in 1941 was an offensive war. And Germany invaded indeed the USSR. But, when the Soviets, in the course of the war, entered Germany's ground, that was not an "invasion" but the continuation of the war on the enemy's ground. (Can we seriously suggest the opposite? I.e. that the Soviets should have halted at the frontier?) When Saddam Hussein, in 1980, attacked a contested ground in the Gulf (note that if the ground indeed belonged to Iraq, there was no invasion), the Iranians considered the matter an ivasion. And a war was started, in the course, of which, the ground of each party was occupied by the other (and then liberated) in turn, many times over. Another example : When the Allies landed in Normandy, in 1944, the land on which they landed "belonged" to Germany, since France had officially surrendered. We cannot seriously refer to any of these tides of war as "invasions". The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And another point- is it correct to speak of a nation's counter-incursion into its own violated sovereign soil an invasion? Example: the UK and the Falklands. Isn't this rather a defensive action?--Gazzster (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Afghan War
It's a common misnomer, but the Soviet action in Afghanistan shouldn't be called an "invasion." Dictionary.com defines the word as "infringement by intrusion" and "an act or instance of... entering as an enemy." The official Afghan government at the time was aligned with the USSR (and the Afghan and Soviet forces acted side-by-side), so when the Soviets came in, there was no violation of the Afghan border. The USSR action was aimed at supporting the Afghan government, not opposing it. If my point is understood, I would like to remove that example from the list. 65.100.0.172 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, wrong on so many counts.  far from being invited in, the incumbent ruler of the country had refused Soviet "assistance", the Russians invaded, removed the Afghan president and installed a puppet Government.  A classic Soviet invasion of a satellite that did not fall into line.  Justin talk 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkish invasions
I've removed three links from the article. First one is the 2008 Turkish Incursion to Nothern Iraq, because it was not an invasion; it was a 8-day limited operation. Also there was almost no contact with civilians, and no armed force had entered populated areas. Other two points are 1921 invasion of Anatolia and 1922 Invasion of Smyrna. Turkish Republic is the predecessor of Ottoman Empire, and the Anatolian land including Izmir (Smyrna) was invaded by Greece as a result of Sevres Treaty. But the 1921 and 1922 wars between Turkey and Greece was not an invasion stuff. We cannot say "Iraq invaded Iraq" if they fight back US troops and force them to leave, as the Iraqi land belongs to Iraq by internatinal agreements. Khutuck (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 invasion of Ecuador by Colombian military
I have removed 2008 invasion of Ecuador by Colombian military because it was a raid not an invasion--EZ1234 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1965 indo pak war
here India is listed as invading force while Pakistan is listed as counter invading force which is not true. please rectify the the mistake India has never invaded any country in its history while you regard freedom of Goa as invasion it was originally ours which was forcefully taken from us  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.60.106 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Taliban
The Taliban was the de-facto government of Afghanistan during the 2001 invasion, and thus only needs to be described as 'Afghanistan', with a link to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in the infobox. DylanLacey (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They did not control the whole part of the country, the northern alliance also controlled parts of it, at least it should list it as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Northern Alliance considering that US forces entered their territory as well. - SantiLak  (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is common for countries to not control all their territory. The Northern Alliance was not invaded because it was cooperating with coalition forces. DylanLacey (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

US occupation of Iceland
The United States didn't invade Iceland as it had already been invaded by the United Kingdom. The occupation of Iceland by the United States was pressed upon the Icelandic government by the United Kingdom which had to leave as its unit was needed elsewhere. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

US invasion in Vietnam
The US deployment to Vietnam was not allowed by the UN Security Council. Why it was not an invasionHanam190552 (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it wasn't an invasion, the US was invited in by the government of the Republic of Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Why it is said that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan while the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan invited the Soviet Union to Afghanistan.Hanam190552 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the soviet's invaded Afghanistan, they were originally asked to send troops to Afghanistan but the didn't, but in the end they invaded Afghanistan and sent special forces in who overthrew and killed the president. The US forces in Vietnam were invited in and came after the invitation, they didn't invade and overthrow the South Vietnamese government using US troops. - SantiLak  (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that president Ngo Dinh Diem had not allowed US army enter South Vietnam. As the result, the US supported the 1963 South Vietnamese coup and the assasination of president Ngo Dinh Diem and his younger brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu. The new gorvernment was only a temporary government, not a constitutional and legistimate government. Only constitutional and legistimate government was able to allow appearances of foreign armies in the South.

After the 1963 coup, there were dozens of coups in South Vietnam. So, which was constitutional and legistimate government in South Vietnam that able to allow the appearance of the US army?

Besides that, the government of Ngo Dinh Diem, which was established in 1955, was also a non-constitutional governemt because the 1946 Vietnamese general electioned with the attendance of 89% of Vietnamese voters had established the 1st National Assembly in Vietnam with the government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Therefore, the government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the only constitutional and legistimate governemt, which was able to allow appearance of foreign army in Vietnam, including the South and the North.

In addtion, can you show everybody any legistimate documents on the South Vietnamese allowance for the appearance of the US army in the South Vietnam?Hanam190552 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 * The 1946 elections were only held in North Vietnam, and were rigged by the Communists. It was not a legitimate election.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was never an official invitation from South Vietnam. So it is an invasion of South Vietnam by the US. If you can prove there is official invitation paper issued by South Vietnamese government, otherwise it is an invasion Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)
 * PS: it is Ngo Dinh Diem who also rigged the referendum in South Vietnam in 1955, therefore that Diem's government is also illegitimate Tran Ai Quoc Vietnam (talk)

US' bombings North Vietnam were invasions
Hanam190552 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity. Combatants include navy, ground forces, air forces and marine corps. The action of bombing North Vietnam and entrying air space of North Vietnam without any allowance at all of North Vietnam or the UN's Security Council in Operation Linebacker, Operation Linebacker II, Operation Rolling Thunder, Operation Niagara, Operation 1st Do Luong, Operation Popeye, Action of 23 August 1967, Operation Bolo, Thanh Hóa Bridge, Operation Flaming Dart,... was actions of invasionsHanam190552 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Bombing another country cannot be defined as an invasion.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, bombing another country or conducting an air raid is technically an invasion, as it entails an INVASION of a sovereign state's airspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.186.1 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

1019 Invasion of Japan by Jurchen Pirates
Does this qualify as an invasion? The definition of invasion describes a "geopolitical entity" and the invaders were apparently pirates. I recognize pirates can sometimes be affiliated with a country, and that pirates themselves may have some kind of political structure, but I'm not entirely sure that a pirate raid is what is meant by an invasion. Please give your thoughts. --Mr Bucket (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

invansion 1594 of turks into HRE
see battle at gran, hungary 1584, turks fighting HRE army .... as truks attacked to take over Christian holy roman empire farook Montezuma 24.44.215.132 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

US Invasion of Hawaiian Kingdom.
"And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States Steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at that time was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government. In point of fact the existing government instead of requesting the presence of an armed force protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government building and palace."

Cleveland calls it a "military demonstration". It is an unconsented to and unprivileged "landing" of troops--an invasion. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/president-clevelands-message-about-hawaii-december-18-1893.php Steve laudig (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Stephen Laudig

 * Do we have an WP:RS calling it an invasion? Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

2014 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War
I removed 2014 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War and restored it. Military action in support of some parties in a civil war seems to me stretching the definitions of an invasion. Ultimately, all edits on Wikipedia have to be supported by reliable sources. So, A4516416, can you demonstrate that the balance of reliable sources refer to this as an invasion? Bondegezou (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Being illegally in a country with Government opposing your presence is an invasion. As well as an occupation. A4516416 (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say, not on the interpretation of individual editors (WP:OR). Do reliable sources call this an invasion? If not, it fails WP:V. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any further comment and no reliable sources being forthcoming, I have re-removed this. Bondegezou (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

US presence in Syria as an invasion
This was yet another illegal invasion by the US without the approval of Syrian Gov. US troops entered Syria to fight ISIS, (a sovereign country) and are still there stealing the oil from the UN recognized Gov. This has been called an occupation by the un recognized gov. Also called illegal, and without approval of the Gov. US troops illegally entered the country and are occupying it. This is an invasion and a occupation of a country. KasimMejia (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The URL you provide does not call US action an invasion. Demonstrate that reliable sources call it an invasion or it doesn't go in. That's how Wikipedia works: we follow what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not need to call it since its too obvious. That's not the rules you provided works, see WP:GAME. KasimMejia (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not need WP:RS because it is too obvious??? That seems to be a perfect example of WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The words occupation and invasion have the same meaning. Has there ever been an example of an occupation without an invasion? KasimMejia (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No they do not mean the same thing. One MAY follow the other but they are not mutually inclusive.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As for use of the word "ocupation", I do not think President Bashar Assad can be seen as a WP:RS... And even he does not use the word "invasion". I think we are finished here, unless any better source comes to light. --T*U (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So who do you believe should decide whether the troops presence in their country is legal or not if not the UN recognized gov? Should the occupier or their media (US media) decide whether they are in fact occupying the country they are present in or not? Who's reliable according to you? 12:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As to occupation with out invasion, depends what you define as occupation. The USA occupied Fort Sumpter, The USA occupied Iceland during WW2, Britain occupied Cyprus, with the agreement of the controlling power (in exchange for support).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there is no agreement here as I've linked above. The UN recognized ruling Gov of the country has called it an illegal invasion. KasimMejia (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I think here we have a valid point, the criteria for inclusion seems to be "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity deliberately entering territory controlled by another such entity.", what the US did does rather fit that. I think we need ti tighten that, we need to make it clear that "has been characterized as an invasion".Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be helpful.
 * In this case, the citation offered by KasimMejia doesn't remotely satisfy WP:RS. The opinion of the Syrian government is clearly biased and WP:PRIMARY. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * US President literally says they are keeping the oil reserves of that country and the country says US is occupying their country. This is the most transparent US invasion/occupation in history. KasimMejia (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Here you say forces were invited by the Gov,. Were US troops invited to steal occupy Syria's oil reserves? This it the brutal truth that you refused to answer above. US is an oil stealing occupier/invader. KasimMejia (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That comment was about Bahrain, not about the US intervention in Syria.
 * You do not understand how Wikipedia works. You can argue all you like, but we have a structure of rules for deciding what articles say. If you don't follow that, you're not going to get anywhere. This looks very WP:NOTHERE. Bondegezou (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "You can argue all you like". WP:NOTHERE fits you much better due to your dismissive replies. KasimMejia (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

1917 British invasion of Hungary.
Such an invasion has never occurred. British forces didn't even invade Austro-Hungary and especially not the Hungarian part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.242.56 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The 1992 invasion of Bosnia
Why didn't you include the 1992 invasion of Bosnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.148.38 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Royal Flag of Vietnam (1802–1885).svg

Source for "2014 invasion of Ukraine"
The linked article Russo-Ukrainian War uses the term "invasion" a few times quoting anti-Russian entities, and a few times without citing source. What source justifies including this? Keith McClary (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

2011 NATO air campaign in Libya
I will remove it. A bombing campaign or the imposition of a no-fly-zone are uses of military force and acts of war but they're different from an invasion in the strategic sense that is intended here, which ultimately entails taking possession of land (incl. with amphibious or airborne landings), which didn't happen in Libya's case. This distinction seems reflected in legal sources as well: for example the Definition of Aggression in A/RES/3314 (XXIX), which reflects customary international law, lists "invasion ... of the territory of another State" and "bombardment ... against the territory of another State" as separate examples of offensive action.

The bombing campaigns undertaken by NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999 aren't listed in the article as 'invasions' of those countries, and neither are the strategic bombings undertaken by the United States against the Japan during WWII, which makes me believe that the 2011 Libya intervention should be excluded as well. If you want to reverse the change comment here first, please. Daydreamers (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

2016 invasion of Syria
The Name makes no sense. There were 3 invasions 2016, 2018, and 2019. Perhaps changing the name to "Turkish Invasions of Syria" Or listing all three as separate invasions?--Garmin21 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My recent edits
Dear ,

1. You reverted my edits 3 times which means you are liable for a block. I am not.

2. Again, not POV pushing, you've yet to provide evidence of it being POV pushing. According to the lead "An invasion is a military offensive in which sizable number of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objectives of establishing or re-establishing control, retaliation for real or perceived actions, the liberation of previously lost territory, forcing the partition of a country, gaining concessions or access to natural resources or strategic positions, effecting a change in the ruling government, or any combination thereof." all my inclusions were invasions.

3. If you bring up that they are internationally recognized as part of the country then I will counter that by saying Anjouan, Chechnya, and Biafra were also not recognized as independent of the country, and yet they are still included in the list.

4. If you wish to make a rule where only entities that are Member states of the United Nations are listed then make a discussion for it.

Please reply, thanks.--Garmin21 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you bring up that they are internationally recognized as part of the country then I will counter that by ... WP:OTHERSTUFF. You're brining new stuff. Those others that are already here are not my concerns. Also the article has many problems itself. The Tigray war and 2020 Karabakh war are not invasions, you can call it by yourself, but you can not push your view here; and your other linked pages do not even mention the word invasion. Also You reverted my edits 3 times which means you are liable for a block. I am not. you're bringing a highly controversial, even wrong edits. It's not about revert counts, you're edit warring. Beshogur (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:OTHERSTUFF, it's part of the page that makes it able to be discussed. If we want to make the page consistent then we have to discuss what's on the page. also it's not my view. Here is a reliable source calling the ENDF invasion of Tigray an invasion . Here is one calling TPLF invasion outside of Tigray an invasion. here is one for the Azerbaijani offensive into the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh. --Garmin21 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those three using the term invasion vaguely. Invasion occurs when you invade foreign soil. Is this all you could find? an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country. Which are not the cases here. Is Tigray and Artsakh another country? Doubt. One is a federal region, other is a quasi state de jure under Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Anjouan, Chechnya, and Biafra foreign soil? What do we even consider foreign soil? Is it what the UN decides or is it what the entity being invaded decides? Nagorno-Karabakh considers itself foreign soil. Do we include just UN member states or do we also include UN non-member states? What about Taiwan? They aren't a UN member or non-member state yet multiple counties recognize them. See this is definitely not as clear-cut as you trying to make it. --Garmin21 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue about Anjoan and Biafra, and hearing those two for the first time, but Chechnya situation is definitely not the same. Also Taiwan is a proper state despite not being UN member. Beshogur (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We should be guided, as in all things, by reliable, secondary sources. The threshold for inclusion should be whether most reliable secondary sources describe something as an invasion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I call this WP:OR. Because one news article used the word? You could implement it 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war here as well. Stick to the mainstream please. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't dug into these cases in detail, but, yes, I don't think has clearly demonstrated that most reliable sources describe these as invasions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
It would appear that the inclusion criteria for populating this list is somewhat fuzzy to the point that any time someone puts a foot over a line in the sand it gets plonked in here. The inclusion here would appear to be largely WP:OR for conflicts/engagements that are not commonly termed an invasion in sources and that have articles named accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per invasion, is a military offensive of combatants of one geopolitical entity, usually in large numbers, entering territory controlled by another similar entity, generally with the objective of either: conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. The definition of "invasion" is an act of invading; especially: incursion of an army for conquest or plunder or the act of an army entering another country by force in order to take control of it . Every entry so far has to meet the requirement of one group working to take control of another group. If an entry being listed is a concern, then bring that specific entry up for discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note that this list was questioned with the clean-up tag back in 2020. I've been working to fix it up (specifically the 21st century side) for a couple of days now. I got a whole lot of work to do though, given actually how poor the lists were. The point you made is very valid and still exists, hence why I have started work to clean the list up. But, it will take time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * The inclusion criteria (as I observe it) is, whether, in the opinion of an editor|s the particular event is an "invasion" as defined. This would clearly be WP:OR. The criteria should be whether there is consensus in [good quality] sources that the event is called an invasion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize I did not make the whole article. The article was tagged by in 2020 with a cleanup tag and I have been cleaning it up slowly (starting 3 days ago). Saying I’m the one making up the criteria isn’t true at all. Like really, not at all. Until 3 days ago, I hadn’t edited the article, meaning every entry as of this point was not added by me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stating The inclusion criteria used appear to be more one of editor opinion ... has a totally different meaning from The inclusion criteria used appear to be more of one editor's opinion. I wrote the former, not the latter. It appears to me that you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * The World War II section is certainly eccentric, as it imposes artificial structures around various campaigns (e.g. two separate entries for the Italian Campaign, for each of 1943 and 1945). The article as a whole is low quality, and not unrelatedly is almost entirely unreferenced. An obvious solution is to only include campaigns that are described as being 'invasions' in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, doing that would make the list get questioned a ton. For example, the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria is most certainly an invasion, involving the capture and complete takeover of 4,820 square kilometres with 600 settlements. Yet, it is not called an "invasion" on Wikipedia. I think that causes some problems, since, by every definition (including the Wikipedia invasion article), that is clearly an invasion. Actually, "invasion" is mentioned 7 times in the article, but none of the sources refer to it as an invasion. This is due to the Turkish president warning people not to call it an invasion. Things like that cause problems. Sticking to the definition of invasion and having discussions about entries is probably the best case here. Otherwise, we will have contradictory articles (i.e. list of invasions not matching what an invasion). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires that content be sourced to reliable sources (not Wikipedia articles), so this isn't some kind of optional thing. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WeatherWriter: I have reviewed your additions to the 21st century list by comparing an older version of the article with the current page. I am left with a few questions.
 * Your additions include the Battle of Qurna (Iraq War), the Capture of Aguililla, the Moura Massacre, the Battle of Bambui, the Battle of Bal'ad, the Battle of Buulo Mareer, and the Siege of Babanusa, which you have termed the "2005 invasion of Al-Qurnah, Iraq", the "2021 invasion of Aguililla", the "2022 invasion of Moura, Mali", the "2022 invasion of Bambui, Cameroon", the "2022 invasion of Balad, Somalia", the "2023 invasion of Buulo Mareer", and the "2024 invasion of Babanusa", respectively. It is probably worth noting that even if omitting the year and the country, search engines are not aware of invasions of any of these places. During my time on Wikipedia, I have tended to oppose the invention of terminology that does not already exist in reliable sources.
 * That aside, the point I wanted to make with those particular examples, all of which only concern a single city, is that referring to such events as "invasions" seems rather unnatural even though they may fit your criteria. Even such phrases like "invasion of Bakhmut", "invasion of Avdiivka", "invasion of Mariupol", or "invasion of Aleppo" return few to no results. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a policy of, by default, excluding military operations with the objective of only a single city, unless they are referred to that way in reliable sources, but even that gives me pause. For example, "invasion of Rafah" can be referenced pretty extensively in recent articles. What would you do about that?
 * Furthermore, you have referred to the 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensives and the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive as the "2022 invasion of occupied Ukraine" and the "2023 invasion of occupied Ukraine", respectively. Do you basically draw no distinction between a military offensive and an invasion? For example, could I refer to the Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019) and the Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–March 2020) as two invasions of occupied Syria? Are Operations Valfajr 1, Valfajr 2, all the way through 10, individual invasions?
 * A pleasure as always. My very best wishes
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot to unpack here, so I’ll start with the first part. Those additions were done due to the definition of invasion. None of those are apart of an offensive or invasion. For example with the Battle of Bambui, the article describes it as an “offensive” and even the parent war article, Anglophone Crisis says that “Cameroonian forces initiated a three-day, multi-front attack”. By definition, that is an invasion that was more like a stand-alone offensive in a mostly stale war (i.e. not much direct military activity per year). That is a whole other issue to be honest. How does thing like the Anglophone Crisis get categorized. Unlike the Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Palestine conflicts, there is not “large-scale” style invasions. More like 1 invasion focused on X town and then a month later, a new invasion on Y town, ect… Invasion means taking and occupying a place by force, and that happens, just on a smaller scale. Honestly, “invasion”, by definition is basically a planned offensive.
 * Ok the invasions you mentioned early like "invasion of Mariupol" — My point early is why that would not be a thing. The Siege of Mariupol occurred as part of the Eastern Ukraine campaign (later Southern Ukraine campaign), which was one of the seven-axis “fronts” launched by Russia on 24 February 2022. That and any other battle during the initial Russian momentum would be considered part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and not necessarily its own invasion. However, things like the Battle of Balakliia would not be part of that actual invasion. That battle was when Ukraine went on the offense and not the defense for a full-scale planned offensive (2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive), which had the goal of liberating territory captured by Russia. In the current chart format (or even the format prior to the new-update/split for the 21st century invasions), the “Invading force” was obviously Russia and the “defending force” was Ukraine. By that, the counter-offensives or the 3 Ukrainian paramilitary attacks into Russia could not even be listed as those are full-scale offensives where Ukraine was the attacker, not the defender.
 * A better way to picture that is the 2022 Kherson counteroffensive. That offensive was Ukraine conducting an offensive to retake Kherson, which was formally occupied & more importantly, a full Russian government was established in the city. Also, Russia annexed (not internationally recognized) Kherson Oblast. So, in a reality sense, this was a Ukrainian invasion into the Russia-occupied region, which had its own government, which had to flee due to the Ukrainian military. Would you consider the WW2 German invasion of the Soviet Union to be the same invasion as the Soviet invasion of German-occupied Crimea? I wouldn’t. The attackers/defenders switched sides and there was entirely different objectives for each of those. Those were part of the same war, but not even remotely close to the same invasion. Offensive/invasion are interchangeable; even the Offensive (military) article says that: Another term for an offensive often used by the media is "invasion", or the more general "attack".
 * To answer your question on those two Syrian offensives: yes. Those are two different invasions. The first invasion stopped and a new invasion/offensive occurred later. The term is interchangeable by definition.
 * Hopefully that helped solve some mystery. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The obvious problem here is that you appear to be operating off your own personal opinions, and are not consulting reliable sources. This violates the Wikipedia policy against original research (WP:OR) and well as the policy concerning verifiability (WP:V). Put bluntly, your personal definitions and opinions carry no weight at all per these policies and this is not an acceptable approach to editing. Please stop this, or you will be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The question on what should define an invasion seems to have been basically resolved, and I don't really have anything to add to what others have said, but out of personal interest I just wanted to follow up and ask where you got the figure of the seven fronts of the 24 February Russian invasion. Thanks! SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Battle For Kyiv, a 2023 book. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * as others have said, the inclusion criteria should be (as a minimum) do RS call it an invasion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Well, I am going to have a field day fixing this list. I will ensure only events with sources currently cited for “invasion” are listed. I have already discovered articles like Eritrean attack of Ethiopia, which coincidentally until a minute ago was “Eritrean invasion of Ethiopia” that don’t have a source mentioning “invasion”. So…Removed! The list will be corrected and fixed up shortly. Some full-scale invasions will be removed due to lack of sources and presumed OR until proved otherwise. The famous phrase that there is no deadline on Wikipedia…So, with that said, any article that does not have a reference for “invasion” will automatically be removed and someone else in the future (probably me) will do some searches and find said source for the event being an “invasion”. I think this wraps up the discussion and sets a clear criteria…RS saying “invasion”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 * To clarify the inclusion criteria for the benefit of editors, I would suggest the following criteria: Events included in this list are those where a significant proportion of independent good quality sources have explicitly referred to the event as being an invasion I would clarify some of the terminology. A significant proportion does not mean more than a simple majority (50%) but something approaching a simple majority and not a fringe view. In this context, independent means authors writing at arms-length from the subject - ie without nationalistic ties to the subject. Good quality sources would exclude WP:NEWSORG sources. It would include academic and credentialed authors. Explicitly referring to the event as being an invasion would mean that invasion, invaded, invaders or another gramatical form of this particular word. The lead should also be modified to reflect the inclusion criteria, though the wording will probably be a little different given there is a different target audience. Open for comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. WP:NPOV obviously applies here as well, so the existence of sources that use different terminology or argue that there wasn't an 'invasion' should be appropriately taken into account, and editors should also be mindful of the quality of the sources per the widely accepted essay WP:HISTRS. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of invasions


text:
User talk:Indian~enwiki

Hi Guys,

I am a 2nd year Comp Engg. student from india.

i am intrrested in computer programming (VC++,C++,C) currently i am learning the ins and out of Visual Studio .NET

I read scince fiction ,i specially like Issac Assimov And Frank Herbert (Dune series is my fav)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Indian. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Indian~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Indian~enwiki


text:
User talk:80.185.226.135

Hi,

I am sure you were trying to be helpful, but biological lists are ordered by taxonomic relationships, not alphabetically. The orders you added do not appear on any official British list, because they have no members. jimfbleak 07:12, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:80.185.226.135


text:
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West is a 1970 non-fiction book by American writer Dee Brown that covers the history of Native Americans in the American West in the late nineteenth century. The book expresses details of the history of American expansionism from a point of view that is critical of its effects on the Native Americans. Brown describes Native Americans' displacement through forced relocations and years of warfare waged by the United States federal government. The government's dealings are portrayed as a continuing effort to destroy the culture, religion, and way of life of Native American peoples. Helen Hunt Jackson's 1881 book A Century of Dishonor is often considered a nineteenth-century precursor to Dee Brown's book.

Before the publication of Bury My Heart..., Brown had become well-versed in the history of the American frontier. Having grown up in Arkansas, he developed a keen interest in the American West, and during his graduate education at George Washington University and his career as a librarian for both the US Department of Agriculture and the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, he wrote numerous books on the subject. Brown's works maintained a focus on the American West, but ranged anywhere from western fiction to histories to children's books. Many of Brown's books revolved around similar Native American topics, including his Showdown at Little Bighorn (1964) and The Fetterman Massacre (1974).

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee was first published in 1970 to generally strong reviews. Published at a time of increasing American Indian activism, the book has never gone out of print and has been translated into 17 languages. The title is taken from the final phrase of a twentieth-century poem titled "American Names" by Stephen Vincent Benét. The full quotation, "I shall not be there. I shall rise and pass. Bury my heart at Wounded Knee", appears at the beginning of Brown's book. Although Benet's poem is not about the plight of Native Americans, Wounded Knee was the site of the last major attack by the US Army on Native Americans. It is also one of several potential locations for the site of Crazy Horse's burial.

Synopsis
In the first chapter, Brown presents a brief history of the discovery and settlement of America, from 1492 to the Indian turmoil that began in 1860. He stresses the initially gentle and peaceable behavior of Indians toward Europeans, especially their lack of resistance to early colonial efforts at Europeanization. It was not until the further influx of European settlers, gradual encroachment, and eventual seizure of native lands by the "white man" that the Native peoples resisted.

Brown completes his initial overview by briefly describing incidents up to 1860 that involved American encroachment and Indian removal, beginning with the defeat of the Wampanoags and Narragansetts, Iroquois, and Cherokee Nations, as well as the establishment of the West as the "permanent Indian frontier" and the ultimate breaches of the frontier as a means to achieve Manifest Destiny.

In each of the following chapters, Brown provides an in-depth description of a significant post-1860 event in American Western expansion or Native American eradication, focusing in turn on the specific tribe or tribes involved in the event. In his narrative, Brown primarily discusses such tribes as the Navajo Nation, Santee Dakota, Hunkpapa Lakota, Oglala Lakota, Cheyenne, and Apache people. He touches more lightly upon the subjects of the Arapaho, Modoc, Kiowa, Comanche, Nez Perce, Ponca, Ute, and Minneconjou Lakota tribes.

American Indian Movement
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee was published less than three years following the establishment of AIM, the American Indian Movement, formed in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1968. AIM moved to promote modern Native American issues and to unite America's dividing Native American population, similar to the Civil Rights and Environmental Movements that gained support at that time. The publication of Brown's book came at the height of the American Indian Movement's activism. In 1969, AIM occupied Alcatraz Island for 19 months in hopes of reclaiming Native American land after the San Francisco Indian Center burned down. In 1973, AIM and local Oglala and neighboring Sicangu Lakota took part in a 71-day occupation at Wounded Knee in protest of the government of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation chairman Richard Wilson. This resulted in the death of two Indians and injury to a US Marshal. The ensuing 1974 trial ended in the dismissal of all charges due to the uncovering of various incidents of government misconduct.

Vietnam War
At the time of the publication of Brown's book, the United States was engaged in the Vietnam War. The actions of the United States Army in Vietnam were frequently criticized in the media and critics of Brown's narrative often drew comparisons between its contents and what was seen in the media. The primary comparison made was the similarity between the massacre of and atrocities against Native Americans in the late nineteenth century as portrayed by Brown's book and the 1968 massacre of hundreds of civilians in South Vietnam at My Lai for which twenty-five US Army troops were indicted. Native American author N. Scott Momaday, in his review of the narrative, agreed with the viability of the comparison, stating "Having read Mr. Brown, one has a better understanding of what it is that nags at the American conscience at times (to our everlasting credit) and of that morality which informs and fuses events so far apart in time and space as the massacres at Wounded Knee and My Lai."

Thirty years later, in the foreword of a modern printing of the book by Hampton Sides, it is argued that My Lai had a powerful impact on the success of Brown's narrative, as "Bury My Heart landed on America's doorstep in the anguished midst of the Vietnam War, shortly after revelations of the My Lai massacre had plunged the nation into gnawing self-doubt. Here was a book filled with a hundred My Lais, a book that explored the dark roots of American arrogance while dealing a near-deathblow to our fondest folk myth."

Reception
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee received ultimately positive reviews upon its publication. Time magazine reviewed the book:

"In the last decade or so, after almost a century of saloon art and horse operas that romanticized Indian fighters and white settlers, Americans have been developing a reasonably acute sense of the injustices and humiliations suffered by the Indians. But the details of how the West was won are not really part of the American consciousness. ... Dee Brown, Western historian and head librarian at the University of Illinois, now attempts to balance the account. With the zeal of an IRS investigator, he audits US history's forgotten set of books. Compiled from old but rarely exploited sources plus a fresh look at dusty Government documents, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee tallies the broken promises and treaties, the provocations, massacres, discriminatory policies and condescending diplomacy."

The Native American author N. Scott Momaday, who won the Pulitzer Prize, noted that the book contains strong documentation of original sources, such as council records and first-hand descriptions. He stated that "it is, in fact, extraordinary on several accounts" and further complimented Brown's writing by saying that "the book is a story, whole narrative of singular integrity and precise continuity; that is what makes the book so hard to put aside, even when one has come to the end."

Peter Farb reviewed the book in 1971 in The New York Review of Books: "The Indian wars were shown to be the dirty murders they were." Other critics could not believe that the book was not written by a Native American and that Dee Brown was a white man, as the book's Native perspective felt so real. Remaining on bestseller lists for over a year following its release in hardback, the book remains in print 40 years later. Translated into at least 17 languages, it has sold nearly four million copies and remains popular today.

Despite the book's widespread acceptance by journalists and the general public, scholars such as Francis Paul Prucha criticized it for lacking sources for much of the material, except for direct quotations. He also said that content was selected to present a particular point of view, rather than to be balanced, and that the narrative of government–Indian relations suffered from not being placed within the perspective of what else occurred in the government and the country at the time. UC Davis history professor Ari Kelman also criticized the book for allegedly perpetuating the "Vanishing Indians" myth, stating "[a] hugely popular work of revisionist history intended to document a vibrant Indian past, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee instead reduced Indigenous history to declension, destruction and disappearance", also claiming "Dee Brown, no matter how sympathetic he intended his portrayal of Native history and peoples, recapitulated antiquated rhetoric about the disappearance of Indians."

Brown was candid about his intention to present the history of the settlement of the West from the point of view of the Indians—"its victims," as he wrote. He noted, "Americans who have always looked westward when reading about this period should read this book facing eastward."

Film
HBO Films produced a made-for-television film adaptation by the same title of Brown's book for the HBO television network. The film stars Adam Beach, Aidan Quinn, Anna Paquin, and August Schellenberg with a cameo appearance by late actor and former US Senator Fred Thompson as President Grant. It debuted on the HBO television network on May 27, 2007, and covers roughly the last two chapters of Brown's book, focusing on the narrative of the Lakota tribes leading up to the death of Sitting Bull and the Massacre at Wounded Knee. The film received 17 Primetime Emmy nominations and went on to win six awards, including the category of Outstanding Made For Television Movie. It also garnered nominations for three Golden Globe Awards, two Satellite Awards, and one Screen Actors Guild Award.

Children's literature
The author of Lincoln's Last Days, Dwight Jon Zimmerman, adapted Brown's book for children in his work entitled The Saga of the Sioux. The narrative deals solely with the Sioux tribe as the representatives of the story told in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee written from the perspective of the Sioux chiefs and warriors from 1860 to the events at the massacre at Wounded Knee. The book includes copious photographs, illustrations, and maps in support of the narrative and to appeal to its middle school demographic.

title: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee