Jump to content

Talk:Foreign fighters in the Syrian civil war and War in Iraq

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

Needs work

[edit]

Western countries can do with expansion. Also Libya, Tunisia, Lebanon/(Lihaas (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Disucssion

[edit]

WP:IRE-IRL is apropriate, I have read the history and your edit of unlinking Ireland is correct, use of the description isnt needed, but if linked it should be piped. Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here since 15 June, and your edit summaries say I havent discussed it? And for the record

"A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts:

  • Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
  • An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland" or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
  • Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").
  • Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]."
In this case as I said above its either piped or unlinked. Murry1975 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts. Consensus is established. Read WP:CONLIMITED it might help your understanding. Murry1975 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABOVE TRANSFERED FROM LIHAAS TALKPAGE Murry1975 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained, and per IAR, when a BOLD edit is challenged the onus is on the editor to seek consensus before reading and warring. So seek consensus on your version instead of believing youre god almighty. As it stands today, you do NOT have that consensus per BRD. If youre [clearly] unfamiliar] with WP, discussions take place here not private talk fests, User:Murry1975. Blind reverts don't help either. Neither do pipelinks that mention something other than the link (and clearly there is a difference). So either link it to ROI or Ireland and mention that instead of hiding it.Lihaas (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of a larger consensus as stated on your talkpage for weeks. As you are clearly unaware user talkpages are an accept form of discussions related to the encylopedia. Murry1975 (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus having been formed here as requested in accordance with BRD, as stated. Personal talk pages are for 2-way discussions...I have repeatedly asked you to discuss and gain consensus here which you have failed to do and instead you diverge from the discussion on the content. Until youa chieve that consensus by explicit WP policy youre WP:WRONGVERSION is not acceptable.
Further, ive attempted a compromise that doesn't even use the piep link. Yet you simply want your version blindly.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IF you would like to suggest a compromise here, as you seem to not understand BRD or consensus, please feel free. As I have now added the discussion from your talkpage where the links and information on consensus has been posted, your WP:IDHT attitude is very obvious. Murry1975 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your absolutely right a failure to get the point is disruptive. As has been said in accordance with consensus formation you need discuss BEFORE readding in order not to bve disrupticve. One can then easily cite IAR as well, so discuss it and gain consensus. I linked directly to the government of Ireland 's own wikipedia page as that is where the information came from. If you have problems with that page then move it to disambiguation
Read your own quote "except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context" it is NOT being used int he same context as there is no source asserting that anyone from the north is there, if thats the case find the source. The writ of resident in the north is not held by the southern government to make that claim.
And refrain from NAP...discuss this issue here alone, the rest doesnt concern your personal vendwettaLihaas (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to read that with the poor English, no offence but there are too many typos to actually make it readible. Murry1975 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Per your own quote "except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context" it is NOT being used in the same context as there is no source asserting that anyone from the north is there, if that is the case as you claim a possible overlap then find the source showing northerners in Syria. The writ of residents in the north is not held by the southern government to make a claim of those UK citizens there...at any rate, if there was someone from the north that would foall under the UK section. We go by RS...although citing some past deed here as could be countered by IAR too. So consensus needed firstLihaas (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point, if in the same context NI is being mentioned we use ROI, if not, as per your first edit on which was correct, we just use Ireland, but if linked we pipelink the states name to the article, the states name is Ireland but the article title is ROI. Murry1975 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we NEVER piepilink. and you don't have consensus to change your edit. that is vandalism. Alternatively we could hide it out till you get consensus.
WP itself links the government of Ireland to where its determined. If you can show theres a single shred of evidence disputing the location betweenm the 2 entities THEN you have a point. All the evidence is pointing to the actions of the Republic's government which is where the liunk currently goes!
So you want to UNLINK it? fine, its per OL anywaysLihaas (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

Keep an eye on 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa being a possible blowback incident a la Belgium. but its too early as of this writing.Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TLWJ":

  • From Battle of Aleppo (2012–present): Joscelyn, Thomas (3 July 2015). "Al Nusrah Front, allies form new coalition for battle in Aleppo". The Long War Journal. Retrieved 4 July 2015.
  • From Qalamoun offensive (May–June 2015): Joscelyn, Thomas (3 July 2015). "Al Nusrah Front, allies form new coalition for battle in Aleppo". The Long War Journal. Retrieved 4 July 2015. Jaysh al Fateh ("Army of Conquest") Qalamoun was formed in early May to fight Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist group that supports Bashar al Assad's regime, and the Islamic State.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel

[edit]

Why just foreign fighters on the rebel side? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bad article, numbers are ridiculously low

[edit]

"49,570 foreign opposition fighters have been killed by early August 2016, according to the SOHR" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Foreign_opposition_fighters_killed

ISIS alone has 27-31k foreign fighters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/iraq-and-syria-how-many-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-isil/

There's either 10-12k or 10-20k Shia Afghan fighter http://nationalinterest.org/feature/syrias-other-foreign-fighters-irans-afghan-pakistani-14400

I'd expect the compound number to be at least 50k BenjaminKay (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign fighters in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign fighters in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Foreign fighters in the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the whole text needs revision and rephrasing, with regard to grammar, spelling etc. Royalrec (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the US section, this report has figures that can be included

[edit]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2015/08/26/the-other-foreign-fighters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.116.158 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

[edit]

This article is far too long, it would make sense to split it into Foreign fighters in the Syrian Civil War and Foreign fighters in the Iraqi Civil War. Konli17 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Problem though is a lot of the article refers to ISIL, who operated across Syria/Iraq border. Should it be split three ways? (the third being something like ISIL foreign fighters) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three ways sounds good. Konli17 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that, except I've called the Iraqi one Foreign fighters in the Iraqi conflict. If I'd known how much this article is just Syria, I might have made a suggestion to move instead. Konli17 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work Konli17. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Still a fair bit of tidying to do, especially with the lengthy Syrian one. Have a look when you've time. Konli17 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources about foreign fighters deal with which countries fighters were coming from, not which side of the Iraqi/Syria border they were fighting. Also, by what standard is the article too long? Therefore a split along the Syria/Iraqi lines is unworkable. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fighters from the following left-wing groups are fighting on the government side

[edit]

Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Lebanon Region, Syrian Resistance,Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (1991) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcinTorun (talk • contribs)

First is not left-wing but should be included in article; second is not foreign; third lacks sources; have added fourth in the Palestinian section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposed split

[edit]

ISIL foreign fighters currently redirects to this page, when I believe it's not entirely relevant - ISIS were / are waging a war separately from the civil war, and something similar to Brides of ISIL would work well. Any thoughts from anyone else? Naihreloe (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s a good idea because there’s a strong connection between the wars of Iraq and the wars of Syria, a lot of information on this history is combined due to this, such as arrests of people fighting for isis not containing which country they fought in due to the group fighting in both, along with Kurdish groups and etc, maybe restructuring the wiki page is a better idea but I don’t know how I would do it Bobisland (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_fighters_in_the_Syrian_civil_war_and_War_in_Iraq&oldid=1246298137"