Talk:Third Battle of Fallujah

Title

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• Agree I support Battle of Fallujah (2016)

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

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)

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Two_major_offensives_against_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

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)Template:Z48

Reliable Sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)