Template talk:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox: Difference between revisions

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Template:International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox, 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: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) 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. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators’ incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators’ edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered “clearly established” the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don’t revert!

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This template is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq This template is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia

Discuss at Talk:International military intervention against ISIL#This page is too big after including templates, it is breaking Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe not including them both is severely disingenuous. The article’s name “international military intervention” can very well mean military forces of the world (internationally) intervening.

It is especially a spit to the face of the thousands of martyrs who have fought against ISIS to not include them, those who were the chief fighters against ISIS, those who have suffered more than the very known efforts of the U.S. and Russia against ISIS PLMandarynka (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PMF is not an official “military force” of any country in the world. Neither is Hezbollah. And it is absolutely irrelevant whether the “martyrs” who fought ISIS are happy or not; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for fighting culture wars, and not a soapbox for propaganda or advocacy. We do not represent, nor serve, Hezbollah nor the PMF; it is entirely irrelevant to us whether our content “spits in their face” or not; our policies are what determines article content, not the hurt feelings of members of designated terrorist organizations.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esteemed counter-terrorists are terrorists … That’s a new one …

Anyways, nowhere within the template does it state that the members of the infobox have to be official armies of a given country. Actually i believe that the opposite would be true; the only article of the usage of this infobox (to my knowledge) is titled ‘War against the Islamic State’. Why would paramilitaries who contributed greatly against the Islamic State be excluded?

Hamas isn’t excluded, pre-2024 Syrian opposition groups aren’t excluded, and as much as SDF tries to separate, they’re not a country either.

Thus by the exclusion of two very important fighting forces against ISIS, one arguably the most important of all, sending over 100,000 soldiers, and being very key in pushing them back, i believe it makes for a very disingenuous situation PLMandarynka (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a “new one” — neither one are “esteemed counter-terrorists”; both are legally designated terrorist organizations by multiple nations. And the whole point of this discussion is that the template is quite literally named “International military intervention against the Islamic State infobox.” This is not “every single group involved with fighting ISIS”. You cannot make the argument of “why shouldn’t X be excluded” without substantiating why X fails to meet the definitional criteria for inclusion in the first place. But the main thing that you’re not grasping is that other inappropriate content being in the template that should also be excluded is not a valid justification for including further inappropriate content. It’s an argument that ALL of the inappropriate entries should be removed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And i repeat once again that the article’s name “international military intervention” can very well mean military, armed forces of the world (internationally) intervening, not necessarily military forces of nations intervening excluding non-official national armies.

I still believe it is very disingenuous to exclude key players in the defeat of ISIS from a mention in a textbox of those who fought against ISIS, one that only appears on the article ‘War against the Islamic State’ – not “Military interventions of countries against the Islamic State” PLMandarynka (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the PMF nor Hezbollah are the military of any nation in the world, period; there is no such thing as a “military force that is a non-official national army”. So no, it could not “very well mean” a thing that does not exist. If your point is that we should rename the War against the Islamic State article, that’s not really relevant to this discussion as the appropriate response would be to start an RFC on the appropriate page after the necessary RFCBEFORE has been conducted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is. PLMandarynka (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a second that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself and that article is extremely poorly sourced, the cites the international legal definition as “a category of combatants that consists of individuals forming part of the armed forces of a party to an armed conflict” which does not apply to either the PMF or Hezbollah, neither of which are the armed forces of a party to the conflict as they are both non-state actors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim to the quote has zero correlation. They very well are armed forces of a party to an armed conflict.

Either way, this is heavily deviating from the main course of the topic. You have expressed zero actual interest towards a consensus and your arguments have relied on technicality/pedantry or unrelated subjects.

The article on which the textbox appears, War against the Islamic State, goes in detail discussing and naming the involvement of Hezbollah in the conflict, and in a smaller extent, primarily due to the separate article, the PMF.

I increasingly see a lack of reason to exclude the PMF and Hezbollah in the textbox, as your arguments have held little ground, relying on a pedantic definition of the word “international military”.

If this discussion gets nowhere with previous moot points being repeated then i will attempt to seek consensus by a wider group of people, not one person who is unwilling to leave standing their ground PLMandarynka (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct — your poorly formed arguments, which have failed to address any of the substantive points I’ve made, simply amount to “I want it”, and have not only definitely failed to convincingly achieve consensus, you’ve successfully convinced me about the lack of good faith in your editing. Regardless, achieving consensus for disputed edits is entirely your responsibility, not mine. Seeing as you’re simply now repeating the same failed arguments, I’ll assume you have no further points to raise and I’ll remind you not to WP:CANVAS as your threat implies. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]