Talk:Third Battle of Fallujah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

Why is the title of this page named after the government codeword for this attack? Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and should use the term 'battle' as in the first and second battles of fallujah

Hello. I'm kpoalvin and wanted to let you know there was page about this offensive made the day the operation started, we should transfer the info on one page and pass it to the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpoalvin (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes change it to Third Battle of Fallujah.Shadow4dark (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would NOT be the "Third Battle of Fallujah." There was another 5-day battle before this one, during which ISIL captured Fallujah, in early January 2014. If we rename it so, it should be to "Fourth Battle of Fallujah." LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that one in early 2014 was dubbed Fall of Fallujah (2014), maybe because there was not a real battle. Even if you're probably right we should follow the most common naming in the sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be relabeled to Battle of Fallujah (2016), most english language sources refer to it as battle in fallujah or battle of fallujah. Since we have other articles on other battles that have occured in the city, i believe simply listing it as Battle of Fallujah (2016) would be most appropriate.XavierGreen (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I support Battle of Fallujah (2016)

Shadow4dark (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice a cite error with one of the references it was mistake I made as I thought the wording that I was editing was the title in order to change it to the title suggested above. Edit I've also seen some of the sources just to get causality counts for both sides,some of them don't add up as this wikipedia page said that 379 Isis militants have been killed so far however one source mentioned that around 103 militants have been killed since Monday so there could be a slight error with the causality count — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources that actually do name the battle refer to it as the Third Battle of Fallujah. Perhaps we should rename the article again to maintain consistency with the widely-known First and Second Battles of Fallujah articles. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While a number of sources have it as the Third battle of Fallujah, others refer to it simply as the Battle of Fallujah. Interestingly, a Gulf News Middle Eastern expert, insists it is the Fifth battle of Fallujah following the 1920, 1941, 2003 (!), and 2004 battles. (Daesh a serious threat). For the time bing, I really think we should prefer a neutral, descriptive name such as Battle of Fallujah (2016), which was also chosen by the Arabic and French Wikipedias. --PanchoS (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral. Both page titles are ok for me, but it should be shown that the one that you propose is used more often.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's the other way around. There's been at least a vague consensus in favor of Battle of Fallujah (2016), and some disagreement with Third Battle of Fallujah. LightandDark2000's unilateral decision to move the article may therefore be reverted at WP:RMT. No hard feelings, but I think a case needs to be made that there is an established WP:COMMONNAME to replace the generic title. --PanchoS (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Fallujah (2016) can easily be confused with Siege of Fallujah (2016), so unless we are going to merge both articles, we should stick with the current title. Although I didn't realize it at the time, since Fallujah fell in 2014, a number of international media outlets began referring to the next battle for Fallujah as the Third Battle of Fallujah. The 3rd battle title also happens to be the most commonly-used term for this battle that avoids confusion. Since the term has been circulation since January 2014 and due to the large number of references to Third Battle of Fallujah, I strongly support keeping the current title. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Third Battle of Fallujah consistently fetches more results than 2016 Battle of Fallujah in Google News. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LightandDark2000: My problem with the current title is that we're prematurely picking up – and thereby promoting – an ahistorical title that's being used by some news outlets but might not ever be used by historians. There's no consensus on whether this is the third, fourth or fifth Battle of Fallujah.
Most WP:RS refer to the battle as the "Battle of Fallujah" or even more generically the "battle for Fallujah". Fox, Al Jazeera (2), Independent, The Atlantic, The National, etc. Btw., your comparison is invalid. "Battle of Fallujah" 2016 yields 7x the results of "Third battle of Fallujah".
Either way, you moved the article without consensus, so the old name is being restored now, and you're free to argue for "Third Battle of Fallujah" in a regular move request. Again, no hard feelings, but if I get the feeling of being tricked, then I do insist on orderly procedure. --PanchoS (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Two_major_offensives_against_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Two_major_offensives_against_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant. Baking Soda (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

To anybody who wants to edit this article I would advise you to be careful in choosing your sources as I fear some of the sources may be propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, a large number of them are, sadly, a great many bad editors using propaganda. we have farsnews, Tasnimnews, al-masdar news, Newss.blog.ir, press tv, Al Mayadeen : all of these channels are either owned by the iranian government, or are pro iran, owned by hezbollah etc we also have iraqinews.com which is highly unreliable and has some sort of angle i cant figure we also have Kurdistan24, which is owned by the barzanis who rule iraqi kurdistan

really a pathetic disgrace, some brave editor needs to remove all the material "sourced" to these outlets (i wont do it cause someone will scream at me)

I agree that some of those sources show only snippets of reality, maybe some even propaganda. But if you put them together with further "western" sources and weigh them against each other, you get a quite good understanding of what is going on. It depends on what you use these sources for. Do you want a broader perspective? Better use higher quality news outlets. Do you want to source single statements by officials? They seem reliable. And please don't defame someone who works here as a "bad editor". This violates WP:NPA.--Gerry1214 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. im glad you agree they are devoid of reality and constitute propaganda 2. the issue is not that they are 'non-western' sources, but that they are unreliable sources which deliberately report false information. you can get an understanding in context using reliable sources alone, whatever region they are based. 3. any editor using Iranian propaganda as a "source" is a 'bad editor', that's not an attack (it was not even aimed at any single person though) 4, again, there is no justification for ever using these outlets as sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree all those sources are "devoid of reality and constitute propaganda". Some may claim that, but if this was more than just a claim then they would prove it instead of just claiming it. But maybe these people just claim that because they don't like what certain sources write. Others maybe don't like what Saudi-Arabian/American/Russian/Syrian/Turkish/Israeli/European sources tend to write. I said: put it all together and weigh it carefully. And in addition, there's indeed no justification to call other editors "bad editors".--Gerry1214 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case, though, that all the media I listed in my original comment are devoid of fact and are merely propaganda. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are Iranian, Lebanese, but to do with the fact they are the official media of the governments or political parties of those countries and they report false information. I have nothing against using a state-run media source like the Chinese Peoples Daily, because they at least report facts. Iranian state media report lies and propaganda. It is not an issue of 'putting it together', it is an issue of excluding unreliable sources entirely and working only from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should prefer higher quality sources if ever possible, but I don't see why we should prefer Chinese state-run media instead of Iranian state-run media. Both are sources from non-democratic countries that should indeed both be handled with care, but not everything reported in those media (statements, details of military operations...) is necessarily wrong. To the contrary, sometimes such sources from the region report faster and offer more details. They just have to be checked for plausibility and put into context of other sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that [1] about Iraqinews and have to admit that - though the site may not reach standards of long-standing larger news outlets yet - such a claim can rarely be found in the region and seems more than ok to me.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made quite clear the reason Chinese state-run news is better: because it reports facts, at least with a level of journalistic standards, whereas Iranian state-run media is pure propaganda and frequently reports outright lies. You can't use a source 'because its regional' if it is reporting things that never actually happened. 2. iraqinews.com has no journalistic standards or credibility; there are plenty of regional news media that have credibility: al-jazeera and al-arabiya are both state owned (qatar and saudi arabia) but they have journalistic standards and credibility and editorial independence compared to 'farsnews' iranian state-run propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're going round in circles. You claim something without providing any proof or source. So there is no result here, but I understood that you dislike certain state-run media and like other state-run media very much. That's ok for me, but has no outcome at all.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, this added, you end up in saying that some state-run media outlets have credibility while an independent page from the region has no credibility. This isn't credible for me. ;)--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that at all news sources are at least guilty of over exaggerating events — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Also there are some things that I don't get in this article such as it saying that over 1000 ISIL militants were killed however it also said that over 500 militants were arrested and there are 1000 militants in the city alone.Does this causality count include reinforcements e.tc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC) This is just getting ridiculous, some major sections and pieces in the article have changed without ever questioning the source which they take the changes from for example at the start of the battle ISIL war estimate to be around 1000 strong however at the end of the battle they were around 4500 strong,now how the hell would they have received reinforcement s of around 3000 strong even though they were completely surrounded by iraqi forces.Now that just shows how sometimes sources from anywhere could exaggerate events to support a side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.158.50 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Recapture of Fallujah[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Recapture of Fallujah. --PanchoS (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2016[edit]

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fallujah (2016) → Liberation of Fallujah – Recapture of a city (i.e. Liberation of Paris). – 99.8.13.120 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Philg88 ♦talk 07:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all recaptures are considered liberations, please demonstrate that's what they're commonly called in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Proposed new name is a recent and highly POV name, best avoided for now unless there is compelling evidence of widespread English usage. (A redirect from the proposed new name would be good however.) Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fallujah (2016). 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) 13:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fallujah (2016). 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) 01:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_Battle_of_Fallujah&oldid=1206272949"