Talk:February 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya

"Egyptian military intervention" a questionable title

Saying "2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya" is very questionable. For example, the same day, we mention Lybian planes striking very similar targets. Tomorrow for all we know, planes from a third country, say the US or UK or France may be involved. We cannot lump all these together as "Egyptian" military intervention in Libya, can we? I also have some second thoughts about calling it an "intervention in Lybia". Egyptians are not "intervening" in Lybia, they are hitting what they believe are IS-affiliated bases in Lybia. The militants may not be even "Lybian" per se. For now better to say "Egyptian air strikes in Lybia". When there is follow-up ground activity, we may rethink the title. werldwayd (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How do we know ISIL militants were killed?

Because the Sisi government says so and The Guardian regurgitated it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.95.167 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's sourced. Go look in the article yourself. I'm not going to go treasure hunting for you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the proposed move. Although a couple of editors suggested "2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya" as an alternative, it may be inaccurate if a ground operation was carried out as suggested in the final comment. Number 57 12:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya → February 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya or 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya – (copied from Talk:2015 kidnapping and beheading of Copts in Libya and reworded) I propose moving this article's title to February 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya, and when Egypt's involvement in the conflict takes a lengthier turn, we might as well create something like Egyptian military intervention in Libya (2014–present) to summarize all the relevant incidents, from last year's UAE-coordinated airstrikes and beyond. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - There's no indication that Egypt will end its airstrikes this month, or that ISIL will suddenly lose its presence in Libya before this month is over. Also, if Egypt continued its airstrikes beyond this month (which is most likely the case), it will make us have to go through the trouble of renaming the article back to its current title. By the way, the current title perfectly describes this event: an Egyptian military intervention in 2015. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, Egypt didn't initiate airstrikes until this year, so if we want to include the UAE's airstrikes, we would have to rename it to something like Egyptian-led intervention in Libya (2014–present). LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(again copied from Talk:2015 kidnapping and beheading of Copts in Libya) There were no Egyptian airstrikes this day or yesterday as far as I can think of. If anything it should at least be renamed to something like 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya (added to the proposal), in case the raids live up to next month. But this "intervention" began last year, while the current title makes it seem as if Egypt's involvement in the conflict started in 2015, which isn't true. I've added "2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya" to the proposal, though I still prefer the title that I initially suggested though, which is more precise. We can easily move it back when there are raids next month, then re-discuss further developments. Conclusion: The military intervention isn't limited to 2015 only, whereas the article in question deals with the airstrikes of February 16. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose February 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya. Currently this seems to be an unnecessary precision, as in this year there's no other Egyptian military intervention in Libya yet (as far as I know). The proposed title may also be prone to staling, if Egypt decides to continue airstrikes in March or beyond. Brandmeister^talk 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support to change to 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya without February though. Intervention is a "loaded word" that needs to be avoided. Egypt is not intervening in Lybia nor interfering. It is just showing force as a punitive action for callous murder of its citizens in the country. The term "Egyptian airstrikes" is a neutral and far more accurate term for the Egyptian actions. When there is also some military action on the ground, we can discuss it further. An analogy with the case of burning of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh and the ensuing Jordanian airstrikes on ISIS targets in Syria is in order. Would we have said "Jordanian Military Intervention in Syria"? Certainly not. They are not intervening in Syria. But had we said Jordanian airstrikes in Syria, we would be accurate. werldwayd (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Jordan is intervening in Syria. Launching airstrikes in Syria is essentially conducting a military intervention. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support changing to 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya as werldwayd said it is more neutral and accurate.Bluewavedragon (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I'm now tending to agree with LightandDark2000. Apparently there was an Egyptian ground operation in Derna two days after the airstrikes. Of course this isn't confirmed yet, but there is clearly no reason for us to change the title at the moment. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Global War on Terrorism" in the infobox

I strongly object to the inclusion of the War on Terror in the "part of.." section of the infobox. I've explained to LightandDark2000 on their talk page that this term still remains a controversial one, and that it mainly (if not always) applies to US-led anti-terrorism campaigns. I've also requested the editor to provide sources claiming that the airstrikes were part of these campaigns, but all of this was in vain as I was reverted shortly afterwards on their talk page with the edit summary "Technically, any campaigns by legitimate countries against terrorist groups (especially al-Qaeda and ISIL) are considered to be part of the War on Terror." I still fail to see sources explicitly saying that the Egyptian operation was part of this particular "war". This is very likely original research and is unacceptable. All comments are welcome. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ground operations

Since ensuing ground operation by Egyptian Army is one of the majour reasons for keeping the title of the article as is, shouldn't we reflect at least what these ground actions were. One of those taking part quoted International Business Times source [1]. Why not incorporate this in the article then. werldwayd (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems the news of the ground attack, reported almost exclusively in Italian media (the IBT journalist himself is Italian, quoting ANSAmed), was false and has since been refuted as originating from a "dream" of an Egyptian commentator: see here and here (in Italian, tweets in English). Nykterinos (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. I've removed the claim from the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

February 18 raid

Instead of reverting, LightandDark2000 should provide the required source(s) backing up this claim: Sources indicate that Egyptian airstrikes continued for another 2 days. Otherwise this is just another hoax story like the military operation one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February 2015 Egyptian airstrikes in Libya. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220130838/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/180447/arab-league-39-understands-39-egypt-airstrikes-in-libya.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/180447/arab-league-39-understands-39-egypt-airstrikes-in-libya.html

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) 03:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)