Talk:War against the Islamic State/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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 [original request on 9Jan2015,03:44,SantiLak: "Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014–present)"] to move it. - SantiLak (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I don't think the date modifier is necessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment SantiLak you are proposing a dab extension, what does the proposed disambiguation extension disambiguate? -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see that it needs to be disambiguated unless ISIL persists and there's an unconnected later war. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)

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

You already posted your oppose above, is it really necessary to repeat? - SantiLak (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, SantiLak - didn't remember commenting before. !striking my second vote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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.

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
So why is the Syrian regime not in the infobox? Jurryaany (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Utter nonsense. Not credible in the slightest without WP:RS to support it. According to Al Jazeera [1], 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)
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)
US General Lloyd Austin testified before Congress in March 2015 [2] 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.[3] 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)

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)

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.

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)

Kurdistan in Results?

I think that "Emergence of and independently governed Kurdish state" should be added to the list of results. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.183.199 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: new RM at the ISIL page.

FY1 - there is an RM on the ISIL page editors may be interested in here[4].Mbcap (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

There are a lot of things that America's government reports or denies. (Especially since the Pentagon confirmed that they couldn't confirm the Iraqi gov.'s report independently.) Unless we get more reputable media outlets confirming this, we can't change his status. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Location increase?

I know there are already 5 States, but directly under ISIL/ISIS in the infobox there is written:

Boko Haram (in Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon)

With only Nigeria listed in the infobox under Location above. So is Boko Haram now fighting for a caliphate also in Niger, Chad and Cameroon or are they just active there (recruitment, training?), Chad has own resources and a pipeline to Nigeria but production is small and corruption is the reason that only the richest 5% benefit from the production of around 100,000 barrels per day and the pipeline. Cameroon is preparing for larger oil production too, since Africa except the oil rich North African Countries (OPEC Members Algeria and Libya, Chad already mentioned in the South from Libya and next to Sudan, since 2011 split into 2 countries) and some small countries (maybe once made independent in this small size because of its oil reserves, EX-Opec Member Gabun or together with large parts of "Oceania" or rural/remote areas of Australia and of course Antartica/North Pole/South Pole and in fact every location which is very rural and has a very small population density, making it even harder since usually such areas only have a very bad logistic connection to the rest of the world, except Greenland maybe, which is/was? for some ships driving to the Northern Part of the US East Coast or Canadian East Coast which of course lies even much more North), same Situation we find in "South Africa", not the Country but the Countries South of the Sahara...

Angola as a large producer (almost everything produced Offshore, most of African waters have not been prospected yet), Gabon area is small for Africa, but it is more than 2/3's of with a Population estimated in July 2015 counts only 1,705,336 people and 2013 estimated 239,300 bbl/day, 1975 until 1994 even an OPEC-Member), Equatorial Guinea (much much smaller area, but still over 28,000 km² and only a population of 740,743 and estimated 290,800 bbl/day for 2013) and a moderate oil production in South Africa are the exceptions (along wit the countries Coal-to-Oil petrochemical complexes which were built decades ago with the experience of Nazi Germany which built CtL "Hydrierwerke" after Hitler took power in January 1933 and gave the leading Companies very high subsidies since a Barrel (158.98 liters or exactly 42.00 US gallons!) did cost less than 1 US-$ in 1933 also because of "exploding" US production and the 1929 financial crisis,

even between 1939 and 1941 the Price was around 1 US-$ (Back then of course 1 Dollar was not just peanuts, maybe like a 20$ banknote today). South Africa will reduce its CtL-Capacity or will not fully maintain it which also reduces the capacity in the next years... but it is bad for South African economy, since thousands of people work in the chemical complexes and on the other side thousands of people produce the Coal, on the World Market South Africa is handicaped because of its location the wealthy countries in Europe and North America are far away and coal has a high weight, means it needs more power to move it for ships or trucks for example. But the Boko Haram might look for the Oil in Cameroon, Chad and of course Nigeria... Cameroon found a oilfield, not a giant, but great enough to make Cameroon a small oil exporter and reducing net imports to zero. Like ISIS in Syria/Iraq they want to find another income source there... but transportation from Iraq/Syria is 1000x easier than selling the oil or (I guess poor quality - since selfmade) oil products in a criminal way... Kilon22 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

David Drugen Dead or not

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/72343178/french-al-qaeda-defector-david-drugeon-killed-in-us-airstrike Is that him or not. Is he dead or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marik-modder (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents?

Why is Wilayat Sinai added to belligerents noting that Egyptian Armed forces are their sole opponent? It's a local battle not a coalition intervention. For Wilayat Barqa I think that it should have it's own section in the belligerents like intervention in Syria and Iraq adding the Egyptian airstrikes and the logistical aid. Also President Sisi has said before that Egypt is a part of the coalition providing intelligence aid if somebody can find reference for that. Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 16:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Egypt is part of the US led group and has bombed ISIL in Libya. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Russia in Infobox

Russia is currently listed in the infobox along with members of the US-led coalition. I think Russia should be moved to its own section since it's not part of US-led efforts. Shipman7 (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - or move Russia with Iran and Hezbollah. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Certainly! Mhhossein (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Some consistency on the belligerents infobox re:Russia, Iran, etc ?

Russia and Iran aren't listed in the "Belligerents" bit of the infobox, but Vladimir Putin and Ali Khamenei are listed in the "Commanders and Leaders" bit. For consistency they should either be added to the Belligerents section (perhaps in a separately delineated "non-CJTF-OIR" section), or removed from the commanders. I'd do it myself but the talk page looks like a warzone 143.167.201.165 (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look a couple sections up I move Russia to an untitled section with Iran. It is not appropriate to call it a Russian-led group since Russia is late to the party, but they are allies of Syrian govt, like Iran. Legacypac (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for a semi-protection of the main page

The main page is permanently vandalized, that's why a semi-protection is necessary. 176.0.84.58 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian withdrawal

As expected, after the recent elections in Canada, they elected a new PM who just kept a promise on withdrawing from the airstrikes. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/meet-canadas-new-prime-minister-justin-trudeau/2015/10/20/41dea584-772a-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/10/21/Canada-withdrawing-fighter-jets-from-Iraq-Syria.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34589250 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/canada-end-airstrikes-syria-iraq-new-prime-minister-trudeau

I'm not sure how the article and infobox should be updated to reflect this change, but I thought you should be aware so that someone that does know can do it. Jurryaany (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Canada is not withdrawing from the intervention, even IF Trudeau keeps his election promise. He wants to stop bombing but step up training in Iraq and humanitarian aid. Also, Canada has done lots of bombing already, so would not be removed from the infobox. Legacypac (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Two questions

Is the UK intervening in Sirya? I thought they were only bombing terrorists in Iraq.

Why isn't Russia included in the infobox if this article is named "Military intervention against ISIL" .? Maybe a better title would be "Western Military intervention against ISIL" if you want to exclude Russia. Barjimoa (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The UK is intervening in Syria in a limited way, mainly aerial surveillance.

Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kurds etc are not "Western". The Anti-ISIL Coalition excludes Russia and Iran specifically (see statements by various world leaders). 20:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

So is the UK dropping bombs in Sirya or not? Cause Italy and maybe Germany are doing aerial surveillance in Iraq but are not listed as intervening in Iraq. So it would be better to define the UK as intervening only in Iraq. If not, all the countries doing aerial surveillance in Iraq should be included. Right? Barjimoa (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

UK did do a little bombing. Legacypac (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Commanders and Leaders Section

It is not entirely clear to me why the leadership of Portugal, Spain, Germany and Italy should be in this section as those countries are not listed in the above section as intervening in any way (Syria, Iraq, Iraq/Syria). They should either be added there too (if they are indeed intervening) or removed from the "Commanders and leaders" section. 84.30.185.238 (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

UK air strikes in Syria

Forgive me, I am unfamiliar with this article. Where does information relating to the UK's airstrikes in Syria belong? American-led intervention in Iraq#British airstrikes or American-led military intervention in Syria#Multi-national airstrikes? Jolly Ω Janner 20:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Like the situation on the ground, it is a little ambiguous at present. If specific to Syria, probably under the latter given the structure of the article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

China

Articles about China involvement:

---Radical Mallard (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No actual military involvement (yet/ever?) Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia?

Maybe we should add Russia. Because they fight on Syria --Marik-modder (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-deploying-air-force-contingent-to-syria/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marik-modder (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's all just speculation and propaganda. Until there's official reports that Russian soldiers shot a gun, or dropped a bomb, then it doesn't count.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.57.129 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

...looks like Russia is committed, and working with France and the USA against ISIS. ---Radical Mallard (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Or not so much. There is a bit of cooperation but a lot of hostility too. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Swedish participation

Why does the article say that the Swedish military is involved in Syria? I haven't seen any source or fact that supports that statement.

The only Swedish military involvement in conflict I can find any facts about are these two:

- the Swedish contribution of three unarmed observers during the UN mission UNSMIS, which lasted only 90 days and ended in 2012. - The Swedish contribution to Operation Inherent Resolve, a strength of around 35 military trainers and advisors, primarily working in northern Iraq with Iraqi forces and kurdish Peshmerga forces. They are not operating (at least officially) in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.218.140 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Philippines front"

As no sources at all were included in the article to support the claim in the infobox that the Moro Conflict, which has been running since the late 1960s, is part of this conflict and there was no material on this topic in the body of the article I removed it. The Moro Conflict article says that one of the many groups involved in that conflict has declared itself to be linked to ISIL, but it seems to be stretching things rather a lot to include it here. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Is this war even legal?"

I came to this article to find out what the legal justification for this war is, as I suspect it is illegal under international law. This article does nothing to illuminate that either way. Quite an omission for an "encyclopaedia" article.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.141.94 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a place to debate it, and if you would like to add a neutral and informative and cited section on it, go ahead, I would refer you to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249, and the fact that the intervention is pretty much completely legal under international law as seen by the UN. - SantiLak (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Military intervention against ISIL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

About Abu Shishani

Is he dead or not, because i read somewhere he dead is this true --Marik-modder (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Casualties - not persons but tanks, humvees, caliber .50 "pickups", light tanks or the much more cheaper "BMP"-Type

BMP-1 as the grandfather of the series is still in use in poor countries, mostly in Africa and some Asian or for small countries army (Carribean or so)... an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" which could transport also some troops and has a gun, already the BMP-1 had a strong 73 mm 2A28 Grom low pressure smoothbore short-recoil semi-automatic gun (40 rounds). MaxSpeed and Range was okay, weight was okay too, there are some stronger protected parts, but weight has to be low, a 7.62 mm Soviet Machine Gun is part of the BMP-1.

so it was ~13.2 tonnes only and Armor 6 - 33mm "rolled steel". Not soo much, but at least enough against most assault gun fires... and the 73mm destroy any not stronger armored target, especially at short range...... also the Soviets used a Diesel engine instead gasoline which the US prefered for long time, the 225 kW Diesel engine (~300 horsepower) Diesel did drive the 13.2 tonnes quite well... since Diesel have lower fuel consumption the range is up to 600km on the Street (in the best case and limited speed driving....),

BMP-2 is a even more upgraded version which still seems to be in production in smaller numbers. Its weight raised to 14.3 tonnes. The 1.1 tonnes were not enough for Soviet planners to put into the BMP-2 a stronger engine... it had also "only" 225 kW/300 horsepower Diesel engine... but I think a more modern engine is more efficient, so the range, speed and so on is quite the same, only the Armor was made much stronger and the strong 73mm gun was reduced to a 30 mm Automatic Gun, this is a real extreme difference... 73mm and 30mm. To be fair the reduction was a smart thing, therefore armor was increased to 33 mm at more places than at the BMP-1. The 30mm is more than enough for such a vehicle, it can fire up to:

The gun has a selectable rate of fire, either slow at 200 to 300 rounds per minute or fast at 550 rounds per minute

I always hate such information, because: A typical ammunition load is 160 rounds of AP ammunition and 340 rounds of HE ammunition.

The 160 rounds at "slow fire speed" are used in ~30-60 seconds, in fast fire mode the 160 AP + 340 HE ammu (500 rounds) is less than one minute fire too... So only small and short shootings are being trained and it does not need so fast guns, the BMP's are too light and small, to carry many thousands rounds... of course a 7.62 mm Soviet caliber Machine Gun is available in BMP-2 too... this ammu is limited too, a high firing speed, but well, it is a cheap fighting vehicle and/or troops transporter in dangerous areas (Afghanistan war between Soviets vs the financed radical moslems financed by US and Saudi-Arabia 50/50... one of the most stupid things the US did after 1950, if not the most stupid. THEY declared it a wholy war anda Dschihad guy came fast and it was a worldwide muslim war, the US trained, payed them for a while, and showed them how to cultivate poppy (for Opium), and gave guys which never used a toilet, or guys which could not read, now such guys were holding weapon systems (Stinger for example) which was more worth than their netto income of the last 30 years or so... as a US official said before 9/11 docu,

"It was fought with their blood but out gold". Saudi-Arabia and USA did create a situation in Afghanistan, like Soviets/China did in Vietnam, only that the Soviet Union would be ruined by the oil price reductions in 1986 when the guerilla resistance was getting record highs almost every month, and Gorbatschow already said in 1985 that the SU will withdrawal in the "next years" completely and give the power over to the Kabul goverment. So it was not okay that US and Saudis invested so much money to hurt the Russians, especially their HIND-Helicopters and some jet-fighters... Soviets were on the right way, Islam seems to be poison to the human brain if you look at Muslim countries, so the only way to stop guys like ISIL or al-shabab in Africa is their language: Violence... self-defense would already be enough since they are very aggresive in Africa, the strong growing al-shabab... Soviet gunships (HIND) were creating much casualties and were feared since they were immune up to caliber .50 (included .50... so you needed more than 12.7mm Machine Guns to damage it, depending on from how war you shoot, which ammu and so on, old Soviet 13mm canons were not a real danger too, a biter large, but if the helicopter moved away as fast as possible the small caliber effect was reduced by larger distance....

The number for lost tanks, armoed troop vehicles, Infantry Fighting Vehicle and so on are the same for months, but they have to be much much higher right now, is there no source?! They captured a lot from Iraqi and Syrian Army, including tanks, BMP's, Humvees, and guns with which they create the cheap but efective "pickups" (Toyota mostly) with a mounted caliber .50 MG which is in infantry fight very deadly, weak point is the almost none existing armor, but since the cars are used old cars from Europe, America or other Asia... the cars are cheap, a caliber .50 gun is not sooooo expensive, the ammu is a bit large and heavy, but it is ok.. so they create deadly pickups... US and coalition strikes tried to hit such targets together with oil industry...

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is terrible

Three different sections on who is involved where, the infobox is a tragedy of tiny flags with people names that no one cares about. Stop adding and start deleting on this stuff, this is not what is intended by Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please elaborate and discuss instead of removing tons of valid information. Jmj713 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
What I said was simple English, please add something yourself before restoring or walk away. Lipsquid (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Material was appropriately restored per WP:BRD - Established consensus for this long standing content is in place; cite policy or start an RFC to remove. Scr★pIronIV 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not long standing and I was being bold by deleting material from an article that is far too long and filled with fluff. As usual the response is to revert to the old garbage and claim being bold while forgetting the part to add to the discussion. Nothing has been said to defend the terrible content. Lipsquid (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you were bold. You were also Reverted, and now we discuss. It has been part of this article for over six months, survived greater than the last 500 edits. For me, I do approve of that content because it is far too exhaustive, and includes national leaders who are not combat leaders. So, if you DO start an RfC, I would probably fall on the deletion side of the discussion. Scr★pIronIV 19:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I would like to gather consensus before an RfC to see if it is worthwhile. I would like to see other editors chime in and we can leave this open for a while. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Islamic Military Alliance should be removed from the infobox, most members haven't done anything militarily against ISIL, and the members that did, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Nigeria, are already listed in other sections such as CJTF-OIR and the Nigeria section. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is way too long and has redundant boxes of -mostly- the same information with flags and the names of anyone who has ever said anything either for, or against, ISIL. Someone put in flags and listed countries like Portugal, Pakistan, Italy and Burundi in the commanders section. None of these countries are involved in any of the operations. The article is in sad shape and needs to be cleaned up in a significant way. Figure out a clean way to make the 4 tables one table, or two at the most. I tried. Lipsquid (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

New lead

The current lead looks like a timeline that has been gutted, rather than a summary that has been written from scratch. I suggest something like this:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In response to rapid territorial gains made by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, ISIS, IS, or Daesh, calling itself the Islamic State) during the first half of 2014, and the group's internationally condemned brutality, reported human rights abuses and the fear of further spillovers of the Syrian Civil War, many states began to intervene against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Later, there were also minor interventions by some states against ISIL-affiliated groups in Nigeria and Libya.

In mid-June 2014, Iran provided military aid and advisers to Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdistan. Simultaneously, the United States ordered a small number of troops to Iraq and started flying manned aircraft over Iraq, and later in August 2014, US began a campaign of airstrikes on ISIL targets in Iraq. Since then, fourteen countries in a US-led coalition have also executed airstrikes on ISIL in Iraq and in Syria. Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish forces are also being trained and assisted by the Coalition against ISIL. Iran has also conducted airstrikes and there are reports that Iranian soldiers have fought ISIL on the ground, but Iranian government maintains that its role is mainly through military advisory and training popular forces (Shia militias in Iraq and the NDF in Syria). Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based Iranian ally, purportedly sent trainers and advisers to Iraq and is also active in the Syrian civil war.

In September 2015, Russia, at the request of the Syrian government, began airstrikes against Syrian rebel groups, including ISIL. Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Hezbollah later announced an official joint intelligence-sharing cooperation against ISIL.

Except in few occurrences (such as the successful operation to break the Siege of Amirli), these anti-ISIL belligerents rarely cooperated directly with each other.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some of the information may have not been included in this article yet, but can be found in other wikilink-ed articles. Any suggestions are welcomed. --Z 09:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)
I agree with Legacypac. - SantiLak (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Legacypac, these are very different articles. Lipsquid (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the name should be changed to the Daesh War or perhaps Daesh Conquests, similar to Early Muslim conquests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.70.18 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Map

How about to add map.Cos Fallujah already captured by Iraqi army --Marik-modder (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Someone add the date cos July already ended thank you again --Marik-modder (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

:Abu Mohammad al-Adnani

Is it he dead already cos 3 days ago he died and even they confirmed his death --Marik-modder (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Peshmarge

is it the Justice if dont talking about blood of over two thousand kurdish Martyrs in (iraqikurdistan, kurdistan of sirya) is it enought if there wrote they in this battle ? My.Angeel (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reorganisation or new article proposal

I think this article needs major restructuring, particularly in its scope, as well as a rename. At this point, it only includes summaries of dozens of different interventions, but doesn't talk about the general world-wide ISIL conflict. It does not talk about just one intervention, but multiple (sometimes uncoordinated) interventions with different backgrounds and motives. So I think first the title needs to be changed to ISIL conflict (2014-present) or something like that. Then, the date needs to be changed to when the new phase of the Iraq war started (for which we have its own article) with ISIL's large-scale takeovers (January 2014), as well as ISIL's large-scale takeovers in Syria that also took place at the same time against (at the time) fellow rebels (January 2014). To continue, five separate sections would be needed, name proposals being: Syria front, Iraq front, Libya front, Other fronts, International ISIL attacks. Each of those sections would of course have their own subsections on the conduct of the conflict on each particular front, including the multiple different interventions. The main reason for my proposal is there is no central article on the world-wide conflict raging between ISIL and their opponents. And we really need one. Or, if people are not in favor of restructuring this article, we create one for the general conflict, and we leave this one as a summarization article for all of the interventions. But again, I am of the opinion a central article on the overall conflict is needed. What does everyone think of this proposal? EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why all pictures of Infobox related to US? i mean no Russian or Iranian related pictures.

Why all pictures of Infobox related to US? i mean no Russian or Iranian related pictures. 45.116.233.61 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Fix the groupings in the infobox.

ISIL is not backed by Tahrir al Sham, and they arent collaborating against America, both are different forces although they are fighting similar enemies. Follow the template that you see in the Syrian civil war page please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItharTheSyrianArchiver101 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct. That's why there is a divider line between ISIL and Tahrir al-Sham. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I've always found the one used in the Syrian Civil war one clearer as it shows each faction separately according to allegiance ItharTheSyrianArchiver101 —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Tunisia, a country that neutralized 46 ISIS fighters in 72 hours, not mentioned in the infobox?!

Is there any explanation for why isn't Tunisia on the infobox even though it conducted numerous operations against this particular group? Tunisia did not intervene militarily against ISIS in Libya but sure did fought and defeat ISIS on its soil between the years of 2015 (year of the two major assaults) and 2016 (Operation of Ben Guerdane) and the neutralization of ISIS leader in Tunisia's mountainous region during the same year.[1]

almost weekly apprehensions and cell-dismantling operations are also taking place but i presume that is not the subject of this article. an update of the infobox is certainly needed. Servitas Vitae (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ (in French) L’armée tunisienne abat l’un des plus dangereux dirigeants terroristes en Tunisie

Images in infobox

The overall selection of images in the infobox seems too "artsy" and not very informative. Is there a more representative set of images to illustrate the conflict? 2601:644:0:DBD0:78BA:4F82:AEA6:E759 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Military intervention against ISIL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Partial Cease-Fire

Trump and Putin had a special meeting at the G20 summit, where they negotiated a partial cease-fire in special zones in Syria. I don't know all the details, but it's my understanding that the zones are intended to simplify and expand relief efforts. Is there a consensus on how to address this information? - Sleyece 16:33:03, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this information is addressed on Syrian Civil War Cease Fires, and not in this or another article. Sleyece (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The ceasefire is not part of the military intervention against ISIL but the Syrian Civil War in general. As the user above said, the information shouldn't be addressed here. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Causalities for Iraq and Syria Governments

How come the Causalities for the Iraqi Government and Syrian Government are not shown in this? While the Kurdish Causalities are? Someone should add The Iraqi and Syrian Military casualties to the infobox on the page under causalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon551055 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military intervention against ISIL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military intervention against ISIL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military intervention against ISIL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't move to ISIS

The decision to keep ISIL has the discussed many times. Keep all pages consistent with ISIL please. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose the article called Dutch War against ISIL be merged here, since the article title mentioned is completly hyperbolic. There is no such thing as a 'Dutch War', there is a Dutchparticipation in a military intervenbtion gainst ISIL (i.e. 6 F-16 fighters). None of the sources mentioned in the article refer to any 'Dutch War'. Hence the article title (and its content) are misleading to say the least. Kleuske (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has been continued at Talk:Dutch War against ISIL#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This page is too big after including templates, it is breaking Wikipedia

The templates and modules at the bottom of the page are not being expanded because the page is hitting the 2MB limit of an "expanded page". See Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded for details.

This page has about 900KB of content if you do not count Template:International military intervention against ISIL infobox. This special-purpose infobox template is only used by this article. The template itself is over 1,300,000 bytes, pushing the total over the limit.

Suggestions:

  • Split the article
  • Take some flags and other things out of the template so the combined size is under 2GB.
  • Find redundant references and remove them.

If the template is reduced, any references that are removed may need to be copied back to the main article or they will show up as "missing" references in the reference list. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your note. I see a few possible options. I guess we could split it up by year? or else by region? any other options out there? --Sm8900 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The box here is a bloated monstrosity, and whoever put it together fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the box. It isn't to cram every minute detail you can find a field for, it's meant to give readers a brief understanding of the topic.
You could reduce the size of the infobox considerably by cutting most of the extraneous individuals listed; we don't need 20 commanders for ISIL, including the "Senior ISIL economic manager". Personally, I'd prefer the World War II solution and cut all but a few of the leaders and link to subpages (if we even think those are necessary here). Then, take a chainsaw to the strength section. We don't need an itemized list of every piece of military hardware. Cut the minor force strength sections altogether - Qatar contributed a pair of Mirage 2000s? Good for them, it doesn't need to be in the box. Also, cut the redundant sourcing - we don't need 4 footnotes for Russia's casualty figures. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I've trimmed about 40kb from the box, but it's still far too bloated. At this point, we probably need to create standalone lists like List of countries involved in the military intervention against ISIL, Leaders of the military intervention against ISIL, Casualties of the military intervention against ISIL, etc. to follow the Allies of World War II, Allied leaders of World War II, World War II casualties etc. series of articles. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Your trimming fixed the issue with breaking the wiki, but as you said, it's still bloated. At this point decisions can be made editorially instead of being "under the gun" (pardon the pun) to fix a technical issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: - it looks like you undid the cuts I made inadvertently - can you take a look? Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Change Algerian president in infobox

As I can't access the infobox, can Algeria's president in the infox be changed to the current president of Algeria? Bouteflicka has already stepped down. Chipperdude15 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ashraf Ghani

Why is Ashraf Ghani shown with the Islamic Emirate flag in the list of leaders? Just because Afghanistan changed hands does not mean he changed allegiance. 72.36.119.42 (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to War against the Islamic State. There is no opposition to using "war", but no consensus about changing "Islamic State" to "ISIS". War against the Islamic State will be used as a provisional compromise. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

International military intervention against the Islamic State → War against ISIS – Between 2014 and 2019, the IS-Syrian conflict became a war fought against ISIS by many belligerents, some of them were battling each other in Syria but were now against an expanding enemy and it has also been waged by many foreign forces in multinational front: Iraq and Syria to stop the expansion of the Islamic State in the region. The conflict is now being commonly called as the War against ISIS, for example: [5] and [6], the new name is shorter and reflects better the fact that this was a war between a war and not an unified effort since many countries such as Iran, Turkey, Russia and the US were not on the same side yet partaking in this conflict. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The group has not been recently called ISIS. Showiecz (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ISIS is not now the common name and never was everywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, its a is a more WP:CONCISE name and there is some evidence that ISIS is more common that "Islamic State". For example, Google News shows 16.8 million results for ISIS vs 2.3 million results for "Islamic State".VR talk 16:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Also if the issue is use of the name ISIS vs "Islamic State", then would people be open to the title "War against the Islamic State"? My preference is "War against ISIS", then "War against the Islamic State".VR talk 17:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • May well depend where you are. In the UK it's hardly ever referred to as ISIS. But it's referred to as Islamic State everywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "war", regardless of the ISIS part Red Slash 01:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortening the infobox

The infobox is much too long. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I propose we include only the leaders of the major coalitions, and the leaders of the countries where ISIS has been the most active (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Nigeria). On the ISIS side, only the so-called "caliphs" should be included. I am aware that they have little operational control over each affiliate, but the affiliates do pledge allegiance to them, and there are simply too many affiliates to include them all. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_against_the_Islamic_State/Archive_4&oldid=1146004614"