Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amele023 (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 10 July 2017 (→Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

To shorten up your article

I visit this article every once and a while and I've noticed that this article is now "too long to navigate comfortably". My advice would be to separate the timeline of the battle into a separate article. I, of course don't know how you guys like to do it here but that's my idea. Hope you guys can do it and by the way, it's a very interesting article that you guys explained well in my eyes.22mikpau (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is necessary at this stage. --LukeSurl t c 20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Currently this is far from encyclopedic size. Summarizing each months activity in a couple of paragraphs in their specific chapters may be better, leaving the daily activities to a separate article. --Anonymous viewer 14:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.90.88 (talk)
For a battle of this magnitude, we should have at least 1 paragraph per week, with the sections being condensed under monthly subheadings. A good way to start would be to trim out minor/insignificant information or announcements, such as random shellings, minor advancements, etc. This would be a good way to start. I think that for this article, we should aim for 400,000 bytes initially, and maybe 300,000 bytes later on. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix small errors in June 20 entry

"It is later reported by the Iraqi Army that she army's 9th armored division" should be "It was later reported by the Iraqi Army that the army's 9th armored division"128.183.140.122 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Jeff Stetekluh[reply]

This seems to have been fixed as far as I can work out. Please post here again if it has not. MPS1992 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of timeline

Hello everyone, while informally mentioned above, I think it is a very good idea to split the timeline section into a new page. Any thoughts? I would like to leave this up for about a week for consensus. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous discussion here (there's a 2nd one 15 topics below). This subject was brought up again in a topic in Archive 2. Each time, consensus was almost identical; keep the content together (no article split). We will condense the article content and trim out the unnecessary details once the battle has concluded. (The battle's going to end within 1-2 months anyway, so why the rush?) Given the importance and length of this battle, the article is going to be a good deal longer than most articles you would expect, but the significance demands much of the detail, and the article can be slimmed down eventually. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An easy way to shorten the article a bit is to split out the Order of Battle section into a separate article (similar to the Raqqa campaign article). I will do that next weekend. The main battle section is the heart and core of the article, so it needs to remain. It can be condensed later on. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

At the moment I don't have much to add, but I will say that we as editors should be tactful in our approach to the article length. Articles in the future may well rely on the precedent set here with the Battle of Mosul.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is too long but still has all useful, non-repeated info, then splitting it up is the way to get it down to manageable chunks. Also, what this article really needs is an animated map that shows ISIS territory changing over the months. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to look at, if you have your sights set on articles in the future, is how similar articles have been structured and how they have been received. So for example Normandy landings, an equally important article about an equally important campaign, is less than 90Kbytes in size. Whereas this article is approaching 450kbytes in size. Is this because the Normandy landings article is lacking important details, or it is because this article has hundreds of items of irrelevant low-level content? What do you think? MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this battle lasted a lot longer than the Normandy Landings, which only took one day. I'd compare with something like the Battle of Stalingrad for a campaign of more equal length. Also, due to social media and such, there may well be more info available now than then. And the multiple parties involved in this battle further increases the complexity. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A greater quantity of available information does not necessarily mean an article should be longer. Much material from social media is either a primary source, or unreliable, or both. There is a vast quantity of published primary source material in the form of personal memoirs of individual soldiers about twentieth century campaigns, for example, but we would use almost none of it in a proper Wikipedia article. This article and some related ones currently are a little too eager to cite Twitter or online video content as sources. Are Mosul Eye and Middle East Eye reliable encyclopedic sources?
I agree that the Battle of Stalingrad article would be a good basis for comparison. One point I would make is that, unlike this article, it does not repeatedly list incidents of 8 soldiers or militants killed on one particular day, 12 on another, 9 on another in a particular place. This is detail for detail's sake in the absence of coherent overview and analysis. MPS1992 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Battle of Stalingrad article would be a good one to emulate. As far as the reporting of casualties goes, if many soldiers or militants were killed assaulting/defending a key position, that instance should be included. However, many of the casualties reported now were killed by ambushes, snipers, I.E.Ds, etc. These deaths should not be reported in detail and could be summed up with an explanatory sentence on the page, else this article will remain long.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that we have more detail included, because the entire battle took place as the article was being written. If the Battle of Stalingrad had happened as it's article was written, we would expect a similar level of detail. I still think the day-by-day accounts are useful, though. I propose that it be kept, but boxed up, so only those interested can open up the box. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be better to trim out the unnecessary information, as well as daily "trivia" information. As for the rest, we should condense the information where possible, to make it more concise. In the end, it just might be better to condense all of the sections into monthly subheadings, with about 1 lengthy paragraph per week or so, and maybe additional paragraphs where the length and important deems necessary. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2017

The last 150 sources say this: The time allocated for running scripts has expired. 2602:306:32A7:17E0:28F8:56FF:1AAE:C3FD (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle is over

Should a new section (Conclusion) be added or should the last day just be added to the timeline and that's that? Personally, I vouch for a new section. In addition, there will definitely be sleeper cells plaguing the city for a while, so an "Aftermath" section should also be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blimeo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An "Aftermath" section makes sense, but as for "Conclusion", there's unlikely to be any kind of formal conclusion, like a mass surrender. More likely we will go from ISIS continuously holding areas to intermittently popping up, taking an area for a few hours or days, then being defeated there. Then we will go into a phase of just random attacks and suicide bombers, slowly dying down over years. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the announcement of the end of the battle, there are still fights in the city (as in Benghazi). The battle is not finished yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively long ISIL commanders and leaders list

If we're trying to shorten the article to a sensible length, perhaps the excessively long and rather random list of ISIL commanders and leaders could be curtailed to one or two key commanders on the ground. Also do we really need presidents of the countries involved? For example, in the article on the Battle of Iwo Jima we have the military commanders, but we don't have President Roosevelt or Emperor Hirohito. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like so? TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like the Raqqa Campaign article, we could move most of the minor/insignificant ISIL field commanders/leaders to the Order of Battle section. BTW, I will be splitting off that section into a separate article shortly. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of state in infobox

I'm not sure if this related, but does the infobox need to list heads of state? As in: United States Barack Obama (President of the United States, until 20 January 2017); United States Donald Trump (President of the United States, since 20 January 2017), and several others. The infobox seems way too long -- perhaps removing heads of state would help. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. TompaDompa (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Move Time

Battles basically over, should be moved to “Battle of Mosul 2016-2017”. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"basically over" is not "over". Don't be hasty with these things. There is no downside to waiting a day or two. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy

As always with these types of liberations, any mention of victory causes a direct influx of relieved editors declaring it as over and done. Prematurely. "Abadi met commanders in west Mosul who led the battle, but he has yet to issue a formal declaration that the entire city has been retaken from the group which is also known as ISIS. Abadi's spokesman, Saad al-Hadithi, said victory would not be formally declared until the few remaining Islamic State militants were cleared from Mosul." There are still some fighters. So stop editing it until we get that declaration (soon) and it's really over. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2017

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.
--190.159.239.204 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd02022092: Why not?, If the article is protected and not this the template, which is the one that identifies the article that is against the edition of non-self-confirmed. --190.159.239.204 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was on pending changes before the semi-protection took effect. It will return to pending changes when the semi-protection expires. For now, I see no reason to change it from its current template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

I suggest updating this page to reflect the recent victory won by the Iraqi forces. Given that this battle has now concluded, at least in its current state, the "outcome" and "date" section of the infobox should be changed to reflect this. ArchReaperN7 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The battle has not yet concluded, hence Prime Minister al-Abadi has yet to declare "total victory." If you have a reliable source stating otherwise, please provide it (for a battle of this size, you should have more than one source). LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty confusing because they've declared victory three-four times. Heavypsychbro69 (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No not really. They've made a couple of "tentative" declarations, but no formal declaration of "total victory" has been made yet by any of the Iraqi officials. There's still an ISIL pocket left, so we're still waiting for the official declaration. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official declaration of victory

Victory has officially been declared in Mosul [1]. Waiting for further statements from the Iraqi government. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when they declare victory while a battle is raging in the city, it sounds a bit like Baghdad Bob. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was raging before the declaration. But remnants always remain and after that sleeper cells. The point here should be whether all territory is freed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening the article

Now that the battle is done, I'll like to start shortening the article. My first suggestion is to remove the advances by Hashd al-Shaabi/Popular Militias/PMU/PMF in West Mosul since beginning of their kovement to Hatra. If you all agree, then I could get down to it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

Add in territorial changes, "Expulsion of ISIL from Mosul" Amele023 (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Mosul_(2016–2017)&oldid=789993139"