Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A separate article for Mosul liberation

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I created a separate page for the official declaration of Mosul liberation as it has received significant coverage and this page has already grown too large for viewers who are only interested in the victory news. The victory page though needs further expansion and verification --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Liberation" is a biased word, and I doubt if it will remain with that name. "Recovery" or "rebuilding" might work better. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this title as well. For now, I suggest a merge (see below). Eventually, a Recovery article could be appropriate. Mattflaschen - Talk 23:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"Liberation" is used by many reliable sources, including Western, Iraqi and Iranian sources. Why do you think that must change? --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Mosul liberation

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merger. 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 merge proposal was: No Consensus for merger. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, information about the fighting belongs in the main article. The remaining parts are "Declaration of victory", "City cleanup and renovation" (full text currently here can easily fit in the main article), "Celebration", and "Congratulations and statements by foreign officials". Some of this is too long, and at any rate a reasonable amount of each can be put in the main article. Mattflaschen - Talk 23:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light, Sundostund, Matthieueagan, The iraqi king, SammyMajed, Supreme Dragon, and LightandDark2000: Mattflaschen - Talk 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: since he commented about the title above. Mattflaschen - Talk 00:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mattflaschen: Are you sure the merge is necessary? Mosul liberation has received significant coverage in its own right. And there are still a large number of views, analyses and reactions that can be added to that article. That's why I created a separate article in the first place. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Very Strong Oppose - Are you kidding me? This article is already very weighted, and you want to add even more stuff?! We can't merge this into the main article, it would just bloat it up even more. Either that article should be kept separate, or it should be redirected into this article. But this article is already detailed enough on its own; we don't need another bloated section detailing the "liberation" details. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Very Strong Opposition I second what @LightandDark2000: said. Keep the Mosul liberation page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed merge. 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.

RfC Battle of Mosul end date

Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments13 people in discussion

The end date of the Battle of Mosul is being disputed. Two editors (User:MonsterHunter32, User:JoetheMoe25) state the battle ended on July 10th, when victory was declared by the Iraqi government and supported by CENTCOM. Four editors (User:LightandDark2000, User:StuRat, User:XavierGreen and me) consider the battle to have continued until at least July 20th since numerous sources stated that despite the Iraqi government's declaration of victory heavy air-strikes, shelling and fighting continued in the Old City of Mosul (a few sources saying outright the battle itself was not over). The Iraqi government and CENTCOM are calling it clearing operations and MonsterHunter32 and User:JoetheMoe25 do not consider it part of the battle. LightandDark2000, StuRat, XavierGreen and me do consider it part of the battle. I made two compromise proposals. One that the battle's end date be set as 10/20 July 2017, with a note (rejected). Second that we present two dates in the infobox, one 16 October 2016 – 10 July 2017 saying in brackets main phase of the battle, the other July 11–20, 2017 saying in brackets clearing operations (again rejected). I leave it to un-involved editors now to state their opinion and possibly help us find a compromise solution to the dispute. EkoGraf (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Do not state end date. Do say gov declared victory. This isnancase of TOOSOON. While the battle may have ended, we won't really be able to determine this for another month or two - once we see hostilities really ended on the ground and do not flare up again.Icewhiz (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No change required - We cannot change it because of some sources saying clashes are ongoing, that in itself is not an indication of a battle. One of the sources Iraqi News being used by EkoGraf here is unreliable. One of its report which it claims is from Anadolu Agency doesn't exist. Another is of hiding militants and infilitrators who came out and attacked after Iraqi forces withdrew from narrow alleys. There is no source for battle for the city going on till 20 July as EkoGraf changed it. Even the same source has an admission from ISIL they were defeated because they "retreated". A few sources like ABC News and NYTimes some days ago may have stated it continued. But we can't depend on them, since they don't explain how except some trapped families and fighting which isn't rare as militants always remain. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems good - I think I would shift the note about victory declared and fighting continued from the infobox to the bottom of the first paragraph in the lead, but I think it handles both 'government declared' and that 'fighting continued'. WP:WEIGHT in loose Google, and the official records both indicate 10 July as significantly more prominent, but later fighting deserving a mention. I also suggest expand the Aftermath section to capture the late fighting in the course of events to particularly mention the devastation, plus snipers and boobytraps]. Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Do not change - All the information is presented fairly and accurately. That is what's most important. Regarding trivialities such as "official" end dates, Wikipedia editors can not and should not take it upon themselves to override official military stances. Our philosophical considerations don't come into play. The declaration of victory constituted an official "end" to the operation—the only hard end date we have or will ever have. It's not as if sporadic fighting after the "end" of a conflict is some new, uncharted concept in military history. "Neutral" editors can't just impose their own views because they think they're clever enough to point out that fighting didn't completely end on the official end date. Swarm ♠ 05:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It ended around mid-July - I would state mid-July 2017. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I have a better proposal. Instead of settling on one date, I think it's better that we just present it as mid-July 2017 or just July 2017. That will solve everyone's concerns (I think). Even Associated Press says there is a victory. Now if everyone agrees we can move forward. Probably start a new RfC or just take a general consensus instead of this one if that can be done? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mid-July sounds good. We all agree that it's not early July, say 1-9. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mid-July also sounds good with me. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mid-July covers the spread of available sources and claims well. MPS1992 (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Should just declare the facts. Iraq decalred victory on July 10th, but major fighting continued until July xx. News blackout was lifted on date xxx, so Iraq was trying to hide something. :P Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That invites a problem as to how "major fighting" is defined. Some commentators might not define mopping-up operations as major fighting, even if on the scale to include airstrikes and fire from heavy mortars.

Which reliable independent sources say that Iraq was trying to hide something? MPS1992 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me that organized resistance ended on July 20th, with the banzai like mass attack on that date (similar to the Battle of Attu and Battle of Iwo Jima) but until some historical publications about the war are written, you probably wont find many sources stating that.XavierGreen (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Seek Precedents Look for stable articles about an urban battle between an irregular army and a regular army. The first I found, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, uses the date victory was declared in the infobox, with no qualification. However, in the article, this line appears at the end of the section on the second half of the conflict "Sporadic resistance continued and the last skirmish took place on 5 June 1943 between Germans and a holdout group of armed Jews without connections to the resistance organizations."

On the other Second Battle of Fallujah the end of the battle section states: "While most of the fighting subsided by 13 November 2004, U.S. Marines and Special Operations Forces continued to face determined isolated resistance from insurgents hidden throughout the city. By 16 November 2004, after nine days of fighting, the Marine command described the action as mopping up pockets of resistance. Sporadic fighting continued until 23 December 2004." - but the infobox gives December 23 as the end date. Jd2718 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Per literary sources that state the battle lasted from November 7 to December 23, 2004. Which seems to be the problem here as XavierGreen has said...lack of historical publications (that are yet to be written). But yes, Fallujah is a precedent, where the phase of low-level fighting is also considered to had been a part of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising provides a precedent not to include the period of low-level fighting after major combat had ended. But both have some historical context. This article has almost none - I'm not sure that this is even a news article, but more of a scrapbook of daily clippings... It needs to be cleared out and rewritten. And it may be a year or so before it's even worth worrying about when the battle actually ended. Jd2718 (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Which is why I agree to the above proposal that for now we simply put mid-July as the end date, with the note that is already there explaining the two end dates. Until historical sources show up. EkoGraf (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Mid-July is a sensible proposal. MPS1992 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

HI all. I've been summoned for RFC. You've all thought this through well as you've explored the matter in detail. I encourage the "Mid-July" designation and the explanation. Violent events often have a defining moment, a precise time we can later point to as its origin. That is also often not the situation when searching for a specific end, especially in something like urban warfare. As one commentator wrote: Every room is a new battle. Historical sources may not appear, but do watch for them. And until they do, what you've developed is an outstanding option.Horst59 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

According to most, if not all, of reliable and scholarly sources on the Mosul battle by this point, heavy fighting against a final ISIL pocket in Mosul persisted until late July. The final ISIL pocket consisted of a piece of ISIL-held territory about the size of a city block in Manhattan, New York City, within the Maydan District of Mosul's Old City. Local sources and a number of reliable media sources indicate that fighting for/in this pocket continued until at least July 20, with a couple of sources and the US-led Coalition airstrike log indicating that heavy fighting continued until July 21. As such, 21 July is the "end date," as far as the battle is concerned, because that is the day on which the final ISIL pocket (with territorial control) fell. Unless later reliable reports/studies are released that provide another conclusive end date, 21 July is as close to the actual "end date" as we'll ever get. Facts are facts. Facts trump over declarations, which often in times of war are merely propoganda statements. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (especially the last 3 sources). Case closed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with most of that, but I would still consider July 20-21 to be mid-July. After all, it's only 4-6 days from the middle of the month (15th or 16th), but 10-11 days from the end. At best, it's on the cusp between mid-July and late July. StuRat (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

My suggestions to condense the article

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

The consensus is against the proposed changes to condense the article. Some editors recommend splitting the article into subarticles instead.
Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have prepared a plan to shorten the article to great extent. I hope you can agree. I also welcome suggestions.:

The well-written articles often don't cover all the minute details. My suggestion is to eliminate unimportant things that aren't notable beyond one or two sources or don't make a real impact on the battle.
- This includes elimination of all non-notable killings, or areas captured. For example, x number of terrorists killed or building captured on this day reported by only one or two minor sources and do not have any real impact.
Separate articles for those offensives of the battle that deserve it like Western Nineveh offensive (2017). Only events of these offensive having major impact on the battle should be included in the main article, for example supply lines was cut after x town was captured.
I suggest creating a separate article for violations of laws of war incl. killings of civilians. The main article should only have a short summary on the subject.
- I also suggest that the very notable killings during the battle like the 2017 Mosul airstrike, the other killings should be relegated to the violation of laws of war.

MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinion

I would say that a lot of work went into this article and instead of removing content, the entire "Timeline" section could be spun out into a separate article without much difficulty. It is so long I was not even able to scroll through it to reach the other sections. The key points could then be summarized here, and there is nothing stopping additional article creation. I am neutral about violations of the laws of war as a separate article, for now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved (Summoned by bot) I agree the changes aren't clear, also I believe the article reads through just fine. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Uninvolved (Summoned by bot) Disagree with plan to condense. I see no need to condense the article. Many Wikipedia articles are much, much longer. I guarantee that you would create only serious disputes as to what you deleted. Your view of what is unimportant will differ from the views of others. This article is fine, as is. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The article reads fine, and splitting of material into subarticles per Seraphim System would be preferable. Procedurally, it's unclear what changes are being proposed, and the RFC starter seems to be asking for a carte blanche to make cuts. What cuts should be made should be the topic of talk page discussion, which can then be put to a !vote/discussion via an RFC or other broad discussion.. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

To be clear, I added the Opinion sub-section if people simply want to say yes or no. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It is very difficult for me to figure out what changes you are proposing from the way this RfC is phrased. I generally agree with some of the comments you've made, but you are not clear what what exactly you are proposing to remove. As I said above, I think the whole timeline should be spun out intact, and then the key points summarized here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System What I suggest is this article should only have the notable happenings or key points. A separate "Timeline article" can have the non-notable events if they have to be included. But there is a problem, no one will still care to read it even if it is replicated in the current form in a separate "Timeline article". That's why I suggest eliminating some very unimportant details from the Timeline. The Timeline, even without other sections of this article taken into account, is too long. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Care must be taken when determining what is an "unimportant detail" per your criteria for removal. @MonsterHunter32: could you elaborate on how you plan to decide what to keep and how to keep consensus? This is a huge amount of information for any one editor to become the sole arbiter of relevance. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not read MonsterHunter32's suggestions (above) as implying that MonsterHunter32 -- or any other individual editor -- become the sole arbiter of relevance. This article has been in a bad state for a very long time now, and I strongly support these reasonable suggestions for improving the situation. MPS1992 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've already given my example of unimportant details - like X number of militants killed on this day, or X area or building was captured. My criteria for important/non-important is simple - notability and impact on battle. For eg, X number of militants were killed or some area captured on this day is not reported beyond one or two sources, nor has any real impact on the battle per sources, that will fall in non-notable event. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm more sympathetic to Seraphim System's proposal. Regardless of what facts are included in the timeline (important or unimportant ones), it's a very bad attempt at prose. Breakup of content concerning an almost year-long battle into individual dates is inherently too much detail due to the very nature of the format, no matter how lean the actual content is. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

See my comment in the previous Talk topic. I disagree with the plan to delete content; that would only start heated debates about every sentence that is deleted. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separation of notable offensives

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Editors support the proposal, "To shorten the article I suggest separating notable offensives that were not directly aimed at the city but were a part of it" and "to create separate articles for each of the three phases of the battle, which is where the excessive detail resides, and where it could be preserved in stand-alone form, making the main article less unwieldy and more readable."
Cunard (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As some of my previous suggestions were disagreed upon, I think it will be best to take suggestions one subject at a time. To shorten the article I suggest separating notable offensives that were not directly aimed at the city but were a part of it. For example the Western Nineveh offensive (2017) has its own article.

Instead, I suggest only the major details of the offensive let be remain here in this main article of the battle. And the other details like this many areas were captured in that particular offensive be shifted to that article until they are notable or widely covered in the media.

This way the content will remain preserved on Wikipedia but the Mosul battle article will still be shortened somewhat. It will also help people to discover this content easily which they might not have earlier due to the huge contet in this article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Votes

Support (Summoned by bot) - I support the idea of applying Wikipedia "summary style" to this article. I'm not certain that's what the RFC actually requested, but I believe the article should be divided. DonFB (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Support (Summoned by bot) Even though I think the article is OK, this sounds like a good idea and I won't oppose it. Spinning off notable offensive while condensing yet providing and information-packed overview should be possible, now that the battle has been over for a good amount of time. A peer review might help get fresh eyes and willing keyboards to the rescue. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Opinion

Unlike articles about many other wars and major battles, this one was written while the fighting was happening. As a result, the article has come to resemble a series of dispatches, with many separate paragraphs for events on individual days. This style of writing resulted in excessive "granularity," instead of broader summaries of events. In an ideal world, the article would be rewritten to cut the excesssive detail, but I would not be optimistic that editors could ever reach consensus on the many edits that would be required. An alternative is to create separate articles for each of the three phases of the battle, which is where the excessive detail resides, and where it could be preserved in stand-alone form, making the main article less unwieldy and more readable. DonFB (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion is close to what you said about summarising but it also preserves all the details. Basically what I say is let all the significant and/or notable details of separate offensives not aimed at the city remain here. But the ones not much notable or not having much impact on the battle should be shifted to a separate article for these offensives. Since separate articles will be shorter, people can easily see the details which they normally might not bother on this big one. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support (Summoned by bot) - Agree with DonFB and MonsterHunter32. Article is very long, very detailed. Spinoff articles on the three phases of the battle to keep the details, while shortening the main article to give "the big picture" would seem very sensible. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline of the battle

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page is long. See #19. Maybe we can spin off or summarize significantly the timeline section? Please share your thoughts. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Kainoa Little photographs

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See: [6]. It appears Kainoa Little has tried to release photos for free. I have emailed her/him to get them to do the full ORTS so some of the pics can be used in the article. Waddie96 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Airstrike in Mosul.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Al Nouri Mosque.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)