![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Operation Impact, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Impact article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
And as such, should he be listed in the infobox?
I am of the opinion that he was, but I thought that the may be contentious and I wanted to take the temperature here first. Juno ( talk) 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any problem with taking off the additional citations tag at the top of the article at this point? Llammakey ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up to users, I will make a request to return the title of the page back to its old title. Canada is not at war with ISIL, there has been no official declaration. Llammakey ( talk) 14:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
The following was posted on some other page, challenging the name 'Canadian war with ISIL' (which I already introduced and motivated, 30 March, 13:31) for this article now titled 'Operation Impact':
In Canada, the news reported initially as Operation Impact. Just like we do not refer to Canada's contribution in the War in Afghanistan as the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Its jingoistic and overtly American-nationalistic. Furthermore, Canada is not at war with ISIL. We do not recognize it as an official government and therefore cannot declare war on it. Hence the use of the official military term.
— Llammakey ( talk) 14:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Corriebertus&oldid=712680105#Canadian_Operation_Impact
I'd like to answer, and thus plead once more——but now on this talk page——for title 'Canadian war with ISIL':
Just one source (as far as I know), being the Canadian army themselves, calls the Canadian attacks on ISIL “Operation Impact”. I don’t mind them doing so, but we make Wikipedia for the broader public, not for the military professionals alone. The public knows very well that Canada (and some more countries) are fighting ISIL, so we should just simply reflect that in the article’s title. I suggest: ‘Canadian war with ISIL’. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
(outdent) I have no intention of accepting your apology. The personal attack was attacking my credibility as an encyclopedist and my personal political beliefs, which falls under Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. Patar nailed it. You are escalating a situation for no good reason. It is not intimidating behaviour to warn you that you are crossing a line and explaining what my next step will be. Now you are claiming that I am like Putin and Erdogan which again, is a personal attack under this Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.) So far you've fallen under this in WP:CIVIL (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety, (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings. Go ahead and take it the next level, they'll see you for what you are. Llammakey ( talk) 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
As for writing on this page because you your language, I already explained why I made that remark. I already said it didn't mean you had no rights. I said that as it is your second language, some meaning is being lost on you. Then I went about trying to explain my position on the word war. I then gave you a legal definition, rather than the colloquial one you keep using. Llammakey ( talk) 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is a waste of time, and has fundamentally departed from the original subject matter, and turned into a petty spat. Stop it.
It doesn't matter whether Canada is officially at war. It doesn't matter how you personally define war. It doesn't matter if there has been a declaration or if ISIL is recognized as a government. It doesn't really matter which title is more accurate.
What does matters is whether secondary sources predominately refer to this as a Canadian war against ISIL. This has not been demonstrated. Therefore the title should remain due to lack of consensus for change. If secondary sources primarily referred to Impact as "The Zulu War on Gay Penguins", then that should be title because that is the standard.
I'm closing this extended digression. If you think the title should be changed, then come back when you can demonstrate that it is the primary name used in secondary sources. If you think someone has attacked you then take it to the noticeboards and squabble there. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Operation Impact, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Impact article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
And as such, should he be listed in the infobox?
I am of the opinion that he was, but I thought that the may be contentious and I wanted to take the temperature here first. Juno ( talk) 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any problem with taking off the additional citations tag at the top of the article at this point? Llammakey ( talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up to users, I will make a request to return the title of the page back to its old title. Canada is not at war with ISIL, there has been no official declaration. Llammakey ( talk) 14:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
The following was posted on some other page, challenging the name 'Canadian war with ISIL' (which I already introduced and motivated, 30 March, 13:31) for this article now titled 'Operation Impact':
In Canada, the news reported initially as Operation Impact. Just like we do not refer to Canada's contribution in the War in Afghanistan as the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. Its jingoistic and overtly American-nationalistic. Furthermore, Canada is not at war with ISIL. We do not recognize it as an official government and therefore cannot declare war on it. Hence the use of the official military term.
— Llammakey ( talk) 14:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC), https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Corriebertus&oldid=712680105#Canadian_Operation_Impact
I'd like to answer, and thus plead once more——but now on this talk page——for title 'Canadian war with ISIL':
Just one source (as far as I know), being the Canadian army themselves, calls the Canadian attacks on ISIL “Operation Impact”. I don’t mind them doing so, but we make Wikipedia for the broader public, not for the military professionals alone. The public knows very well that Canada (and some more countries) are fighting ISIL, so we should just simply reflect that in the article’s title. I suggest: ‘Canadian war with ISIL’. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
(outdent) I have no intention of accepting your apology. The personal attack was attacking my credibility as an encyclopedist and my personal political beliefs, which falls under Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. Patar nailed it. You are escalating a situation for no good reason. It is not intimidating behaviour to warn you that you are crossing a line and explaining what my next step will be. Now you are claiming that I am like Putin and Erdogan which again, is a personal attack under this Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.) So far you've fallen under this in WP:CIVIL (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety, (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings. Go ahead and take it the next level, they'll see you for what you are. Llammakey ( talk) 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
As for writing on this page because you your language, I already explained why I made that remark. I already said it didn't mean you had no rights. I said that as it is your second language, some meaning is being lost on you. Then I went about trying to explain my position on the word war. I then gave you a legal definition, rather than the colloquial one you keep using. Llammakey ( talk) 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is a waste of time, and has fundamentally departed from the original subject matter, and turned into a petty spat. Stop it.
It doesn't matter whether Canada is officially at war. It doesn't matter how you personally define war. It doesn't matter if there has been a declaration or if ISIL is recognized as a government. It doesn't really matter which title is more accurate.
What does matters is whether secondary sources predominately refer to this as a Canadian war against ISIL. This has not been demonstrated. Therefore the title should remain due to lack of consensus for change. If secondary sources primarily referred to Impact as "The Zulu War on Gay Penguins", then that should be title because that is the standard.
I'm closing this extended digression. If you think the title should be changed, then come back when you can demonstrate that it is the primary name used in secondary sources. If you think someone has attacked you then take it to the noticeboards and squabble there. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)