Talk:Institute for the Study of War

Self-contradicting sentence

I've removed this sentence from the second article of the first section, because it is self-contradicting: you cannot conduct a battlefield circulation of Iraq in Afghanistan. Could someone with knowledge rephrase this to provide the correct info?

ISW President Kagan has conducted eight battlefield circulations of Iraq since starting ISW for the MNF-I Commanding General, three of which were in Afghanistan for the United States Central Command and the International Security Assistance Force. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 17:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Her staff bio on the ISW website only mentions battlefield circulations in Iraq Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ISW Web OnClear small.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"neo conservative" in the lede

Re . The "Militarist Monitor" appears to be a self published source of dubious provenance. It's basically someone's website (it's twitter has... 300 followers). It's definitely not RS. The WP article does not even use the word "neoconservative". The Intercept is not RS here. At this point neither is Asia Times, especially when all you got is an opinion piece.

That leaves two sources - FP and The Nation - which are potentially reliable. But they are only reliable for the opinion of their writers. In both cases the label "neoconservative" has to be attributed. Basically what we can source here is "some people think ISoW is neoconservative". And that should go into the body of the article, not it's lede. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how the intercept and the Asia times are not reliable sources. As to the reliability of the Militarist Monitor, I don't think we're going to resolve this between ourselves. Is there some formal way to get others to comment on it? Restoring "neoconservative" in the lede for now, as it is an appropriate summarization of their political stance. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The WP source mentions several prominent neocons (check the wiki article on the neoconservative movement - the Kagans are there) instrumental in forming ISW (hence the term "neoconservative advocacy circles" applies to the people mentioned in the WP article) and the concerns about how close the Kagans were to military officials even though they were only civilians. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, some mention of the political stance definitely belongs in the lede. This is legitimate because the purpose of the lede is to summarize the content of the article, and one of the sections of the article is "political stance/influence" Another way to phrase it would be to mention that the think tank is founded and chaired by prominent members of the neoconservative movement. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I am open to removing sources which are unreliable, but I have not been convinced that these particular ones are. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

1. That section has its own problems. 2. That section doesn’t say what the sentence in the lede that you keep reinserting says unless you get all WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about it. So it’s not a summary of the article. Volunteer Marek 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, how about just "conservative" instead of neoconservative? Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That section is still in the article, so a summary of it is appropriate to include in the lede. Not the strongest argument. As for your issue with the sources, you still haven't convinced me, nor have I seen any official policy on Wikipedia that would disqualify those sources. Is is possible to bring in a third party to judge please? I'm afraid we're going to get nowhere if it's just the two of us. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. An article in Business Day (oct 2022) quite explicitly use neoconservative https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2022-10-27-tristen-taylor-neoconservatism-and-the-institute-for-the-study-of-war/

Would suggest "Writers for [Business Day] The Nation and Foreign Policy have called it "neoconservative". Kamahasanyi1 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaza

ISW currently publishes daily updates on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Gaza war. That is the only mention of Gaza in the whole article. I'd like some discussion of their reports on Gaza. -- Error (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Black Bird Group

Black Bird Group is an NGO or enterprise (?) that studies wars like Institute for the Study of War, active now, May 2026, studying the Ukraine War. Source: https://orf.at/stories/3430655/ . URL is based in Finland: https://www.blackbirdgroup.fi/ Helium4 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Deepstate

https://www.deepstatemap.live

writes partially in cyrillic

watches the war in the Ukraine.

mentioned as above by orf.at

Helium4 (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)