Jump to content

Talk:War against the Islamic State: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Most recent map?!
Line 214: Line 214:


Hi, the map in the Infobox is very interesting. I tried to google "Islamic State frontline" or so, and googled for News, but News often come with "Al-Nusra-Front" (in German), I don't know the best words for a search but the maps under "Bilder" (Picture) in Google are old anyway... this Map here is "Created: June 6, 2015". This means it has not been Updated since June 6 or?! Greetings [[User:Kilon22|Kilon22]] ([[User talk:Kilon22|talk]]) 09:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the map in the Infobox is very interesting. I tried to google "Islamic State frontline" or so, and googled for News, but News often come with "Al-Nusra-Front" (in German), I don't know the best words for a search but the maps under "Bilder" (Picture) in Google are old anyway... this Map here is "Created: June 6, 2015". This means it has not been Updated since June 6 or?! Greetings [[User:Kilon22|Kilon22]] ([[User talk:Kilon22|talk]]) 09:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

== Kurdistan in Results? ==

I think that "Emergence of and independently governed Kurdish state" should be added to the list of results. Thoughts?

Revision as of 16:24, 10 July 2015

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Article name should change

2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be changed to 2014 intervention in Iraq and Syria - as the intervention is against other groups as well and the current name is too long. DylanLacey (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it is more geographically accurate.90.244.85.64 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the strikes on other groups in Syria are not that significant, and arguably just strikes on aQ terrorists like in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan etc. This article is a broad overview of the closely related by different coalitions fighting ISIL in Syria and Iraq (each having an article) not against the countries of Iraq and Syria or the autonomous Kurdish regions therein. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Legacypac. - SantiLak (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

The casulaties grow every day, especially for the Islamic State. So that should be updated every day. The casualties are not set at a fixed number, like 464. The casulaties in Syria are lower than in Iraq because the airstrikes began later. Cancina5645 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy figures without sources can not be introduced. If you have sources than great, add them, if not than please don't make any unsourced edits. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many ongoing conflicts have casualties every day. Updates to the list should be made when source is available. PleaseConsider (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LightandDark2000 has been doing a pretty good job at exactly that if you ask me. - SantiLak (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL Flag

What happened to the ISIL flag icon on different pages, it disappeared from the different intervention pages and any pages where its flag is used like that in an infobox. - SantiLak (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan participation

I added some days ago Morocco as another country joining airstrikes agains the IS. It seems that somebody erased it here the sources:

  • Le Maroc envoie ses F-16 en Irak contre l'État islamique [1]
  • Morocco and its F-16s join U.S. anti-ISIL coalition [2] (full article about the Moroccan contribution with 3 F-16 under US command)
  • Morocco is to send F-16s to attack the militants under the US-led operation. [3]
  • Morocco is the latest Arab nation to respond to an American appeal for more firepower, sending several F-16s to the fight. [4]

74.32.60.121 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IS casualties

If, and only if you are taking the Kurdish, Syrian and Iraqi armed forces into account, then you really need to update your body count. I'm working in the Spanish article, and so far we have 3.082 Islamic State terrorists dead. As much aware as I am (if that's the correct way of pronouncing it), that it's not my place to tell you what to do, it's still an abysmal difference. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you can't really estimate the casualties in this case though. Lucasjohansson (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Id doesn't matter whether we're in Spanish, German, or Italian, the casualties are the same, and they are inflicted by the coalition, which contains every country. Every language should say in its own way the total casualties. The Casualties in Iraq are only from September, so it has to be higher by now. Cancina5645 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that they won't accept anyone not killed by US forces, whilst the current estimate of dead terrorists is at just under 4.000. I mean, there is already a page reserved for the US-led intervention, but this article should contemplate each and every party fighting against IS. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. There is a need to move this article as the current name does not have the necessary scope and we are already over a week into the new year. There seems to be a general consensus for this title, but I am not against another requested move in the near future either because the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant changes its title, or someone wants to discuss placing a date range into the title or removing the word "Military". PBS (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – 1. Per Wikipedia:PRECISE. You lose nothing by taking out the words "2014 military

2. 2014 is not needed. It would make no sense to subdivide this page by year as time goes on(i.e. 2015 intervention...). Moreover, the article talks about subjects that predate 2014. For example, the United States Arming the Free Syrian Army.

3. There is no reason for the word "military". The article itself is not currently confined to simply military intervention. See the section on Humanitarian intervention. Second, all these states are using other types of intervention (Diplomatic, Economic, informational) against ISIL. The article should also cover those aspects. Casprings (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone would write anything about divine intervention, scrub that. I'd suggest Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. there can also be interventions through telecoms providers, restrictions on traded goods, border control efforts etc. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Military intervention against Daish(or Daʿish) and i think it is more correct. Now the title is very long, moreover the French and the Italian governments are starting to use the term "Daish" instead of "Islamic state". And i agree on taking out the word 2014. Barjimoa talk. — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. Losing one word is better then none. That said, what do you gain by having "military" in the title? Also, "Da'ish" is less used, at least in the US. We should reflect what is used globally and wikipedia should be global in nature. That said, I am not sure if Da'ish is more often used in major english speaking countries. Casprings (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. There is a moratorium on proposals and moves involving the second half of this title. This is shown in the notice at the top of the page. This move request can only involve the "2014 military intervention against" part of the title. Dekimasuよ! 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The orginal request is in line however.Casprings (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i have no problems on taking out also the word "military". Therefore the title Intervention against.... it is ok to me. barjimoa talk — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dvidshub.net/news/151293/military-airstrikes-continue-against-isil-syria-and-iraq

Editor abcdef (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Counter-proposal: Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014-present) the intervention isn't ending in 2015 as far as we know so this would work. - SantiLak (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you mean Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014–present). But if we go with the first option, it should be 2014–15 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, due to proper formatting style. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 2014–present works better because even though this is the beginning of the year, having it say 2014-2015 makes it seem like at some point in 2015 it ended. I am going to suggest that for the other articles that have been moved as well because it can be kind of confusing to readers, maybe not us but to them. - SantiLak (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that those recent articles were moved to the wrong name. The interventions are still ongoing, they aren't ending in 2015, they are still ongoing as of today. By putting 2014-2015, it makes it seem that they ended in 2015 which is a problem. We understand that they didn't but readers might not and that is who we are trying to inform with these articles. - SantiLak (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: A consensus against moving the article as well as the editor withdrawing their request to move it. - SantiLak (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is only to keep the article scope the same as before and not massively expand it by not being specific. - SantiLak (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it not be better to keep the current name. You could have here, the most notable events as time goes by for the reader to get an overview of the topic. Then you could side articles for major events which you could link to this article. Mbcap (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with removing my request because the intention behind the move is to make clear the article scope being the same as before and not massively expanding it by not being specific about the date. I just want to make sure that the scope doesn't expand so much to something the article never was because of a title change. - SantiLak (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose: Date modifier is unnecessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You already posted your oppose above, is it really necessary to repeat? - SantiLak (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SantiLak - didn't remember commenting before. !striking my second vote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It would seem that, the article would be presented as yearly updates on a military intervention which I think would not be appreciated by the reader. The reader may want to get a general, well written overview of the entire military intervention against ISIL. However I am open to objections against my "oppose". If a better case is made for this SantiLak, I would change to support but at the moment I cannot see how this would improve the article. Mbcap (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to withdraw my requested move not only because there is no support but I feel like at least for now the scope won't be affected the way I fear. I'll just close the RM then. - SantiLak (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some points for editors to think about? maybe

I just had a glance at the article and also the page move. Some issues that might be worth thinking about (if you have heard it all before, just ignore this):

  • Is the page move necessary? Does the average reader on Wikipedia wish to read yearly articles on military intervention in Syria and Iraq?
  • Is the intervention purely a military one against this group?
  • Is their an economic intervention in the area? ie. removing any sources of funding by private individuals from other sympathetic states. There is a recent wall street journal article on how US and Saudi are working together to drive oil prices down to hurt the group financially with the added benefit of hurting Russia as well. These are notable events which may warrant insertion into the article as part of the intervention.
  • Is their a political intervention? The role of US and allies into encouraging Maliki to hand over power, to allow less controversy among sunnis when it came to intervention. The need to form a coalition with middle eastern arab partners to enable less rejection by mainstream Muslims.
  • Is their an intervention in tackling the islamist narrative globally to reduce the allure of the group to Muslims? There is plenty here.
  • Is their a digital intervention? A lot of editorials recently about the role of social media and how to counteract the misuse of the world wide web for islamist purposes.
  • Is it necessary to have "Humanitarian efforts" as a subsection if this is about military intervention? I would imagine you could dedicate an entire article to humanitarian efforts. The red cross openly admit dealing with isil to ensure aid gets to people.
  • What does the literature section have to do with this military intervention?

This is a multi-pronged intervention. I think if this article addressed these points, it would be very impressive in its scope. I will endevour to contribute in this spirit when time permits. Mbcap (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Countries

Why are the foreign countries listed first in the template of the two sides? The Iraqi and Syrian local forces should be at the top since a) It's a war battled in their land b) The vast majority of soldier contribution is by them, respectively. c) Having the United States listed as first makes it look like it's an American war, when in fact it's an Iraqi and Syrian war. So I would kindly suggested to move the local sides at the top of the lists. Chaldean (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US is listed first because all the RS report that the US is the leader. This article is about the intervention by outside forces, not the Syrian Civil War or Iraq Insurgency. In those article the local forces get listed first, then the supporting outside partners. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of ISIS in Libya

Egypt has conducted airstrikes in Libya targeting ISIS today and yesterday ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31483631 ), Libya being an area that ISIS has been active in for a little while longer now.

In addition to this, Italy announced today that it is willing to play a lead role in any coalition "against jihadists" in Libya, nothing concrete yet but a story to watch. ( http://www.france24.com/en/20150215-italy-coalition-libya-jihadists-battle/ )

Maybe it's time to add the situation in Libya to this page?

Jurryaany (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly notable enough to warrant inclusion imho. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 27 Shevat 5775 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention at first if this situation should also be added to the infobox, and to what extent, should the Libyan government be added? and how about other factions in the Libyan civil war, the Syrian regime isn't in the infobox either. Jurryaany (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian regime isn't in the infobox for a good reason as well. The Libyan government has also splintered so who exactly would we be listing in the infobox. - SantiLak (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the Syrian regime not in the infobox? Jurryaany (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation issue

I found that it is a very bad idea to present under the same title "Commanders and leaders", all the leaders of coalition's states on one side and the terrorists leaders on the other side. It adds too much credibility to these terrorists and supports the very same idea they want to promote (auto-proclaimed islamic "state"). I know that this follows a wikipedia template used for many other conflicts, but again, this is not vietnam or iraq war, this is not a war between states. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.164.110 (talk • contribs)

It isn't our job to take sides in the conflict and you answered your own question, it is a wikipedia template and thats how they are formatted and their commanders are in that section as they have been formatted with non-state actors in wikipedia before. - SantiLak (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

7.000 terrorists in three days? Seriously? Why is such an important piece of information absent from the large media outlets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlegóelBigotee (talk • contribs) 00:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Google it. There are dozens, if not hundreds of media sites reporting on and confirming it. But it is true that many significant media sources have omitted this event. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. Not credible in the slightest without WP:RS to support it. According to Al Jazeera [5], Jordan conducted 56 airstrikes in that time period. So each individual airstrike would had to have killed at least 125 people. Gazkthul (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's far from nonsense. You forgot how deadly air campaign conducted by industrialized nations can be, especially with the technology available these days. The US Bombing of Tokyo during World War II was estimated to have killed 100,000 people over the course of one night, more than 30 times the said casualties inflicted by Jordan, in terms of kills per day. And it is obvious that the Coalition nations are hardly utilizing their full military power, as evidenced in multiple sources. Also, Jordan did announce that they had to tone down the intensity of the airstrikes after February 7, due to the risk of the pacing "overtaxing" their already-strained air force. And there are multiple reports that Jordan's airstrikes had caused enough damage to frighten ISIL leader al-Baghdadi into fleeing from ar-Raqqah to Mosul (if only temporarily); after all, Jordan did concentrate 30 of those 56 airstrikes on ar-Raqqah. This figure, although shocking, is hardly "nonsense." The Coalition nations are capable of so much more damage than they have currently inflicted; they probably have enough manpower and firepower to completely annihilate ISIL's fighting power within a year if they so chose. It's just that Jordan was the only nation so far that has decided to make the maximum use of its air force, albeit for 3 days. By the way, the figures came courtesy of a Jordanian commander, and Jordan does have its own intelligence agency, or something of the like. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
US General Lloyd Austin testified before Congress in March 2015 [6] that the campaign "has killed more than 8,500 ISIL fighters". If we believe what the Jordanian military spokesman says, Jordan was responsible for over 80% of the total casualties inflicted in a 9 month multinational campaign in just 3 days. Even more amazingly, they did this with just 56 airstrikes, while the coalition has carried out some 3200 airstrikes since the campaign began to comparatively little affect.[7] As you point out, "it is true that many significant media sources have omitted this event", and perhaps there is a good reason for that.
It makes Wikipedia look silly to uncritically repeat the words of Jordan's answer to Baghdad Bob, who was "best known for his grandiose and grossly unrealistic propaganda broadcasts before and during the war, extolling the invincibility of the Iraqi Army and the permanence of Saddam's rule. His announcements were intended for an Iraqi domestic audience subject to Saddam's cult of personality and total state censorship, and were met with widespread derision and amusement by Western nationals and others with access to up-to-date information from international media organizations". Gazkthul (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The late naming of Operation Inherent Resolve

This is not of sufficient importance to be included in the main article, it's already covered in Operation Inherent Resolve.--Phospheros (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included. After all, it constitutes a great deal of importance to the American-led intervention part of the War on ISIS, which is itself a major part of this international war effort. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Layout

The last two images are displayed over See Also and References sections and change place after you show/collapse parts of the table on the right. Can someone improve it? I would probably mess up. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighters bomb Islamic State artillery targets on 8 August 2014.
U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush sailing with Royal Navy destroyer HMS Defender in the Persian Gulf on 1 October 2014.

ISIL leader isn't wounded.Change WIA status for him.I don't know how to do.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/21/pentagon-isis-leader-not-injured.html http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/21/us-downplays-reports-that-isil-leader-was-wounded-in-airstrike/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.26.183 (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map in the Infobox?

Hi, the map in the Infobox is very interesting. I tried to google "Islamic State frontline" or so, and googled for News, but News often come with "Al-Nusra-Front" (in German), I don't know the best words for a search but the maps under "Bilder" (Picture) in Google are old anyway... this Map here is "Created: June 6, 2015". This means it has not been Updated since June 6 or?! Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan in Results?

I think that "Emergence of and independently governed Kurdish state" should be added to the list of results. Thoughts?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_against_the_Islamic_State&oldid=670847854"