Talk:Operation Impact

Was Cpl. Nathan Cirillo a casualty of Operation Impact?
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)


 * Indirectly, since Bibeau never directly claimed that he was killing because of Operation Impact, it would only be supposition.Llammakey (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional citations
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)
 * Well it`s been six days, I`m just going to go ahead and do it. If it needs to be, it can be put back later. Llammakey (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to return page to old title
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)


 * As the move has been challenged I have returned it to the status quo pending a formal move request to gain a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Milborne.Llammakey (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move
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)

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)
 * “In Canada, the news reported initially as Operation Impact”: that is not how our article presents the facts until now. Our article shows: Harper announced (see National Post) his war against ISIL 3 October 2014 without using the term ‘Operation Impact’.
 * ”Just like....U.S.-led war in Afghanistan”: I’m not proposing a title with ‘US-led’.
 * As this article obviously covers a (two-sided) war, I don’t see any reason not to call it that. I don’t see, why simply calling a war a war should be “jingoistic” (= (bellicose-)chauvinistic), nor why it should be “American-nationalistic”, as Llammakey suggests.
 * “War” in my dictionary has: fight, battle (etc.) between nations or peoples. Airstrikes, but also “exchanging [Canadian] fire with ISIL ground units” several times (see Operation Impact), and Bibeau—considered to be “motivated to assist ISIL in response to Operation Impact”—shooting Canadian soldier Cirillo (see Operation Impact), make clear that Canada is at war with ISIL.
 * “Mr. Harper, who made the controversial decision to join the war in Iraq against Islamic State jihadis, warned Canadians recently that this country would be a target” (says Globe and mail, 23 Oct 2014).
 * There’s apparently no need for an opponent to have a government officially recognized by Canada, to be in war with Canada.
 * I'm not sure you understand Canadian politics. Harper liked talking like that, however without a declaration of war from the House of Commons, we are not at war. Sure he could declare it without asking parliament and send troops without HoC support, but that would have been the end of his political career and those troops would have gone nowhere without the funds they would need from the HoC. You can say Canadian intervention against ISIL, or Canadian conflict with ISIL. It however, is not war for Canada unless we declare it. We participated in the War in Afghanistan and the Korean War, but nowhere is it called Canada's Korean War or Canada's War with North Korea or Canada's War in Afghanistan. Canadian participation in the military intervention against ISIL would be more appropriate.
 * As for your point on Canada's capability of declaring war on ISIL, Wikipedia itself disagrees with you. It states that Canada declares wars on nations and ISIL isn't recognized as one. Unless someone in a secondary source that calls it Canada's War on ISIL like we do the War in Afghanistan then I suggest you look elsewhere. Here are secondary sources that call it Operation Impact. In the lead, Global News, the first sentence, CTV News here's the Parliamentary Budget Officer calling it Operation Impact and here's an entire grouping of articles under the subject header Operation Impact. Llammakey (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Llammakey talks from a subjective point of view: he says "we" are not at war (with ISIL) unless the Canadian House of Commons declares that "we" (= Canada) are at war. Then he denies the fact that an encyclopedia must make up its own position, and not let that depend fully on what this or that Parliament or government does or does not say or think or declare. I’ve argued that the facts show that Canada is in a war (according to the dictionary meaning of that word, and also to the Wikipedia meaning of it) with ISIL. (Not just Canada attacking ISIL: I’ve given grounds to argue that ISIL is/was already striking back at Canada.) I’ve cited one newspaper agreeing that Canada is in that war with ISIL —I’ll save me the trouble for now to search more sources saying that: I don’t think it would change Llammakey’s mind [deleted 4April,5:25,CB,as irrelevant. And I apologize for it too,5April,16:59,CB.] . An encyclopist argues and acts according to facts. It seems however that Llammakey does not act here as encyclopedist, but as Canadian saying/feeling: I don’t like Wikipedia to state that my home country Canada is in a war with ISIL, therefore I forbid Wikipedia to state that fact [That's incorrect and unfair: I apologize.CB,4April,7:27] . --Corriebertus (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, aren't you insulting. The facts are that Canada is not officially at war. In English, which it is obvious you are not a native speaker so I think you're out of your league here, war has a specific legal definition and other words, much like the main article on the subject, does not use the word war. The American article does not use the word war in the title. When we were bombing the hell out of Kosovo we did not use the word war and this is essentially the same package of units we deployed to that conflict. We deployed even more to the Korean War including a naval task element and there is no page called Canada's War in Korea. You are trying to create a precedence here that does not exist in Canadian military history.
 * As for your comment that I am forbidding anything, I am doing no such thing. I oppose your poor word choice based on a few newspaper articles. Encyclopedias are supposed to take the heat out of sensationalist journalism and put things in a considered perspective. I am also opposing you on the basis of Canadian military history as it is represented here on Wikipedia and throughout the more removed second-hand sources. My suggestion to you is to follow WP:Civil and keep the personal attacks to nil from here on in. Llammakey (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore I have no idea why you do not want to meet halfway and call it the Canadian intervention in Iraq, or Canadian conflict with ISIL. You are stuck on the word war and furthermore, here is a newspaper article laying it out for you. From the current Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs minister Trudeau, Dion reject ‘at war’ with Daesh following Brussels attacks. Llammakey (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when is this Wikipedia forbidden ground for not-native-English-speakers? ("out of your league"!?) Possibly my statement about "forbid" was felt as an insult by Llammakey. It was an incorrect statement of mine, not meant to insult, but I'm sorry for that, I apologize [inserted later, 4April,7:27] . The article is about a military conflict between Canada and ISIL; one can even argue that it is a two-sided violent conflict, see my arguments on 31 March—naming it "Operation Impact" would make it seem a one-sided affair. Its being a military conflict between Canada and ISIL is not clearly reflected in the actual title which I therefore consider concealing, euphemistic. I understand that Llammakey has objections to the word 'war' here. Perhaps the word 'war' can be avoided in a title that nevertheless is more explicit than the present title. But I’m not convinced by the objections Ll raises against the word ‘war’. Some national Parliament didn’t choose the word ‘war’ to describe their bombing in a far-away country; similar Wiki articles allegedly don’t have the word ‘war’ in their titles; two ministers of a nation—after that nation has stopped its bombarding in a far-away country—say that their country is not (any longer) “at war” with ISIL – but such facts cannot be decisive in this issue. Encyclopedists (I repeat what I said 3 April) must just look at the facts, and value and name them. Does bombarding an inhabited country fit the relevant definitions (in dictionary and in Wikipedia) of ‘war’? I’ve contended 3April that it does. (Where’s your supposed “specific legal definition of war”? I think we only deal with linguistic definitions, here.) And even after 15Feb2016, when Canada stopped its airstrikes but continued supporting its allied partners that still continued such strikes, there’s much speaking for the conclusion that Canada’s war with ISIL has not really ended. Llammakey proposes the title ‘Canadian conflict with ISIL’; but starting to throw bombs on a group because that group allegedly perpetrates “unspeakable atrocities” is euphemisticly described by the word ‘conflict’; I could settle though for a term like ‘military conflict’. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the legal definition of war War. That's the international one too, not just Canada. So you've been using the term incorrectly, in the colloquial sense, not as an encyclopedic term (hence my second language remark) ever since you started debating it. Llammakey (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Before perhaps reacting again on the issue(s) at hand here concerning this Wikipedia article, I’d like to hear from Llammakey whether his accusation(3/4) of personal attack still stands, and if so, what he (still) considers my personal attack. I’ve taken back two of my remarks of 3 April, even apologized for one of them, but only Llammakey can tell which were/are my remark(s) that he considered, and perhaps still considers, insulting and/or personal attack. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not Llammakey, but I would guess that your accusation that he's putting personal feelings ahead of the best interests of the encyclopedia ("An encyclopist argues and acts according to facts. It seems however that Llammakey does not act here as encyclopedist, but as Canadian..."). The fact of the matter is that Canada is not at war, and until a consensus has emerged for what to call the campaign against ISIS, this article should either stay under the technically correct name of Operation Impact (which seems to be the standards for modern military operations) or adhere to what the Wikipedia aritcle name for the campaign is. That article is currently called "Military intervention against ISIL", so something like "Canada in the military intervention against ISIS" would be a compromise solution. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of debating with you about what I considered a personal attack. You were warned about WP:CIVIL. If there are any further attacks, I will bring you before the admins and let them decide if you should be dealt with. As for the article title, I agree with Patar. I will also ask the Admins to close this debate because we are just going around in circles at this point. Llammakey (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I’ve apologized (4 April) to Llammakey, he gives no sign of accepting that. Even worse: he makes a grave accusation (personal attack)—which is vague because “There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack”—and refuses to elucidate his ground for it; just leaves it to an intimidating “You were warned about WP:CIVIL” —meaning: I, Llammakey, warned you about wp:civil. I’m sorry, but I consider that threatening and intimidating behaviour of Llammakey all together very uncivil and intimidating—sort of how Vladimir Putin rules his subjects. I give him another chance (one day) to be clear about his accusation, before I take it to the Admins. Furthermore, I’ve asked Llammakey (4 April) to reveal my rights as non-native English speaker to discuss on this page. It’s no use ‘discussing’ with someone who doesn’t grant you the right to discuss. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:48, 5 April 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)
 * @Patar: A suggestion (‘It seems that Llammakey …’) is not an accusation.
 * @ Llammakey: I have not attacked Ll’s ‘credibility as an encyclopedist’, just brought up a suggestion, for him to refute: he being Canadian (as he reveals) might conflict with him being encyclopedian.
 * If disagreeing in a discussion falls under ‘attacking my personal political beliefs’ then yes I’ve ‘attacked his ‘p p beliefs’. I prefer though to call that discussion. If he disapproves of that, it seems to me that he disapproves of discussion. In that case, I’ll have to avoid discussing with him. So, please, an answer to that.
 * I consider it intimidating to say to someone ‘you are crossing a line’ and not tell him what he did wrong, what and where that line is.
 * If I want to compare someone’s behaviour (not someone as a person) with Putin’s behaviour I’ll do that. Who says Putin is a Nazi or is infamous, by the way? --Corriebertus (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it to ANI, I'm done discussing this with you. You do not have consensus to change the page as it is now 2 opposes to your one fore. I will ask someone to close this.Llammakey (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an explicit accusation, but it heavily implies that the suggestion is true, just like if someone says "It seems like X is a tax cheat," they are not literally accusing X of being a tax cheat but the effect is essentially the same. Llammakey posted news sources from across the political spectrum showing that Operation Impact is a valid name and that Canada isn't officially at war, and the first thing you do is to accuse Llammakey of neither arguing nor acting with facts ("An encyclopist argues and acts according to facts. It seems however that Llammakey does not act here as encyclopedist"). While language barriers may be an issue here, it is difficult to assume good faith when the other party does not and instead acts in this manner. And now instead of trying to argue your position from policy (e.g. perhaps WP:COMMONNAME should apply here), you've decided to call him Putin-esque.
 * In any case, if you want to continue this discussion, this would have to be some sort of request for comment process that deals with the names of both the main Military intervention against ISIL article as well as the other Operations listed on this article's "See Also" section, since this discussion is obviously pertinent to those pages. Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:03, 6 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)