Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Timeline

Should we add a section for the advances being made. Seems to going fast.Lihaas (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lihaas: Feel free to add a timeline. Here's one from the first day. There seems to be a huge amount of celebration from the videos I've seen, so it seems like they are really making progress. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Its just the beginning, doesn'tean it'll keep going fast. Besides this is the first such battle that has section for each day. "Timelines" are not needed unless the offensive keeps this pace up in upcoming days.. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bakhdida/Qaraqosh

Falconet8 You have recently added into the article that Qaraqosh has been retaken using this BBC source: (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37691830). I don't know if it was saying that Qaraqosh has been captured by Iraqi Army eaelier. However right now, the source says Iraqi Army is still besieging it and it also mentioned that Iraqi Amry stated reports of it being captured by them is untrue. Your edit is therefore based on an earlier incorrect report that is even denied by the Iraqi Army itself. Also your format in your edit isn't correct. There is no space between "Ongoing" and the asterisk which shows it in a one single line. Can you please change your edit? 61.0.201.161 (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Falconet8 here. I didn't add any sources nor did I write anything about Qaraqosh (or anything else in this article) - All I changed was a number in the article incorrectly claiming that 71 Iraqi soldiers had been killed while there is no such thing in the article. 2 days ago, I heard that the so called "70 killed bombing" was a rumour.

Falconet8 You might have added it by mistake. When I viewed your edit change, here's the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mosul_(2016)&diff=745106773&oldid=745106727), a hidden statement that Qaraqosh was among the villages was captured had been added as well. It's in the status section of infobox and starts with this: < !-- including Qaraqosh.

Can you please remove it? Thank you. 61.0.201.161 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

61.0.201.161Well, it seems someone has already corrected it. But I have no idea how I made that change - I never visited the link to BBC and like I said, I only changed the number of killed. Weird...

What about other factions?

What about Hashd al-Watani (Turkish backed Sunni group) or with their new name; Nineveh Guards. And also the Naqshibandi Army Naqshibandi Army declared war on IS.? Tehy're also involved but not in the side of Iraq&allies nor ISIS. Beshogur (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We are going to need a reliable news source. Anyone can put anything on Facebook. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, most news agencies aren't reporting about that, so? Beshogur (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hashd al-Watani/Popular Mobilization Forces is listed on there as taking part in the alliance. I haven't seen anything about the Naqshbandi yet but we probably need someone to go through Arabic news for an update. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Al-Hashd al-Watani is not PMU, they're Turkish backed Sunni forces. Beshogur (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Them not reporting doesn't allow usage of Facebook. Only exception is if it is an established reliable and expert source who has been published by or mentioned by news sources. 61.0.201.161 (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Error on numbers of dead peshmerga fighters

"26 peshmerga killed" has a source with an article saying "6 killed". The article is wrong in many ways, I think they want to say 26 were killed or injured. But 16 + 6 is still not 26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrqpzef (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It said 26 in the headline but 6 in the article, but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. I found another source from the Washington Post with 11. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Beshogur: - see discussion here. If you find another source that says 26 killed, then use it, but that one obviously has a problem. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't read the article. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

40,000 number wrong

I can't edit, but the number of Peshmerga stands at 4,000, not 40,000 as this article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.169.154.225 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The 4,000 are the ones currently actively participating and deployed in the battles. The 40,000 is the number of those earmarked for this whole campaign, whether active or not. 61.0.201.161 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

With a source that should be clarified on the page.Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi News stated that the 4,000 Peshmerga were for the current attack on Khazer axis (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/mosul-offensive-4000-peshmerga-fighters-start-attack-khazer-axis/). 45.122.144.4 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

International

Pentagon has confirmed. And Iran has at least rhetorical support.

Also in the past few weeks erdogan has been saying theyd be involved while Abadi said "only Iraqis".Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Forces" section is pretty robust - I added more details about Turkey's involvement, which is extremely controversial, since the Iraqis and Kurds do not want them there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Also Russia comments are important.

We should also link o both US and Russia internvention in Syria/IraqLihaas (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Iraq also agrees, which is iornic and noable as the US forces Maliki out to bring in Abadi.Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bashiqa never captured

Bashiqa is still under ISIL control per Peshmerga, they didn't say anything about it ever being captured by the pro-government forces (http://aranews.net/2016/10/kurdish-peshmergas-prepare-major-operation-retake-bashiqa-isis/). The IBTimes source used in the article for its capture doesn't ever say it was captured (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-military-has-started-shelling-mosul-says-peshmerga-commander-1586650). The only news source I found saying it was Al-Masdar News which has given incorrect reports in the past (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iraqi-army-assyrian-forces-liberate-bashiqa-near-mosul/). I think we should change the statement in the article to Bashiqa wss reported to be captured by pro-government forces on 16 October, however it was stated to be under ISIL control by the Peshmerga 2 days later. 45.122.144.4 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done – I deleted this sentence. I can't find anything that says it was captured and found an article from the past day saying they are preparing to fight there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Please add these two link that show both iraqi security forces liberating 40 percent of the nineveh province http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/iraqi-security-forces-liberate-40-nineveh-province/

as well as the residents of Mosul discovering the ‘Land of Caliphate’ map inside one of the main headquarters of ISIS in Mosul, Al Sumaria News reported on Wednesday with Al Sumaria expecting that ISIS will announce its new states before the full liberation of Mosul, in order to raise the morale of its supporters around the world.

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/mosul-residents-discover-isis-land-caliphate-map/

2604:2000:1382:40D0:24D8:EDF5:9D8:A72D (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The first one is ok, but the second one seems to be of no consequence to an offensive and is based on a future uncertainty. 59.89.103.82 (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done I already added the info that 40 percent of the province was liberated, citing the original article in Al Sumaria. Agree with IP above - the "ISIL of our dreams" map info isn't really relevant to the offensive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New

6 ISIS snipers have been killed in Teskhrab village, 6 arrested and 4 surrendered themselves.

7 Peshmerga fighters have been killed and 1 U.S Soldier killed.

https://isis.liveuamap.com/en/2016/20-october-6-isis-snipers-have-been-killed-in-teskhrab-village — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Wali (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Advance from south

A southern advance by PMU and ISF has largely ignored. The PMU has revealed the list of 18 villages captured in the advance (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/18-villages-south-mosul-liberated-isis-first-48-hours/). Normally I wouldn't use Al-Masdar for it, but the list has itself been confirmed by PMU (https://twitter.com/pmu_english/status/788739056544849920) and there's no other news source anyway. Please add the advance. 117.199.82.145 (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate that tweet is. Lazzaga is northwest of Mosul. Al Masdar just took it from the PMU Twitter, so it's not independent reporting. I'll try to find a list of villages to make sure the southern front is covered and we have the right towns. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please remove Naqshibandi army from Iraq

Naqshibandi (Baathists) fighting both, ISF, Peshmerga and ISIL, they're another group. Make them as third belligerent. Beshogur (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's reported that they're cooperating with the Popular Mobilization Forces. Hashima20 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On their statement: they said; We repelled ISF attack too. Beshogur (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed them entirely. What sources exist that they are taking an active part in this offensive? The fact that they are already at war with everybody does not mean they are actually belligerents in this theater of war. I found only claims and threats they are making - but they are not exactly reliable. There are hundreds of journalists and news reporters documenting this battle and people in Mosul reporting on what is going on - if they are actually doing something, especially if they are fighting against ISF or coalition forces, there would be independent confirmation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

list of villages liberated

Does anyone have or know where we can find a complete list of villages liberated? I'm trying to do a second map infographic and am thinking of including these if we can reliable source it - thank you! —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Some images from VOA

Could be migrated from here: http://www.voanews.com/a/suicide-bombers-hit-targets-in-northern-iraq/3560527.html Victor Grigas (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Role of kurdish

the most forice which fighting in this battle are kurdish military, and the commands of batttle very more than this number are in first, for eg- Sirwan Barzani just his force more than 5,000 peshmerga. and aziz waisi he is the commands of one biggest force in iraqikurdistan, Zeravani. and before ech of that in first of this articl just wrote the batlle in (english and arabic) where it in (kurdish) language ? My.Angeel (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Now the sections are becoming too much

To be frank, if we keep creating a section for every day, we'll likely end with over a 100. This offensive doesn't seem it will end quickly. Was it a short one, it would have made some sense. 59.89.42.30 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

An ISIL convoy of 30 vehicles fleeing from Mosul to Raqqa carrying ISIL fighters and their family members was hit, with most occupants being killed. Ot should be added. Here is the source: (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/warplanes-destroy-large-isis-convoy-trying-escape-raqqa/)

61.0.201.161 (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page will be unprotected very soon. TerraCodes ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

REQUEST TO INTRODUCE SOURCE on 22 October 2016

REQUEST TO INTRODUCE SOURCE: Requesting the introduction of two sources for the US soldier killed in the "CASUALTIES AND LOSSES" tab.

SOURCES:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sd-me-sailor-killed-20161021-story.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKCN12M032

PedroPT1993 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Paine  ^u/c 09:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2016

Please add this: ISIL attack on Kirkuk has been at least largely repelled though some remnants remain. At least 48 militants were killed in the attack according to the police chief. 11 militants who tried to attack Mahmoodia village were reported to have been killed. Sources: [1] [2] [3]

117.214.246.240 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Paine  ^u/c 09:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

Please remove this section (or at least do some more serious fact checking):

Under Media reactions and reporting: International Business Times reported that "disturbing and graphic footage posted to social media allegedly shows Iraqi security forces torturing and interrogating young children as they attempt to retake Mosul from the Islamic State terror group."[135]

The source cited (International Business Times....) actually cites a different source - the UK's Daily Star ... Which is certainly not one thing - a reliable source. The whole paragraph is set under a paragraph describing how Iraqi people are going to work to debunk propaganda video by ISIS made to intimidate / scare the population of Mosul (scare them, I now understand, that the IRAQI army forces are violent brutal people). Not that the footage referred to in the para I ask be deleted needs to be that, but at least it seems as likely as not to be either way... (so therefore I'd remove if there is no stronger evidence) 78.42.129.95 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Paine  ^u/c 09:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkey Involment (Infobox)

I am deleting "(claimed by Turkey, denied by Iraq)" in Belligerents about Turkey's involment. Now it is offical that Turkey is involved and Iraq does not deny it, on the contrary demands that Turkish troops to leave Iraq soil. Mingus79 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Current Events Tag

I'm adding the current events tag as a courtesy for the page. As of October 28, the battle still goes on, and current news reports on it. I'm just adding it in to discourage people from writing whatever they see in the news, to prevent to risk of inaccurate information, especially when relating to casualties and personnel counts. If you think it doesn't belong, please start a discussion with me instead of just outright removing it without warning. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. It's a major current event - I'm adding it back to the top as the Iraqi forces are expected in the city within a few hours. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this really Battle of 'Mosul'?

It's not a battle in the city center, so it's not battle of 'Mosul'. I think, we must move the article to Nineveh Offensive (2016). Beshogur (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I voiced the same objections when this was created. We should have kept it under Mosul offensive. The outsides have to be secured first to assault the inside ie., city. Villages and smaller towns often have to be taken first. I suggest though we should wait until the Iraqi forces reach Mosul. If the battle of the city itself is long, then there will be a point in a separate article for it. If it short, then definitely there is no point as the nain objective of this is Mosul anyway. 117.214.246.240 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• All reliable sources refer to it only as the Battle of Mosul or Mosul offensive - the offensive started with liberating the towns outside of Mosul. It looks like they are finally about to enter the city itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a mistake ?

Why describe "Galveston" in this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arqui (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

More likely vandalism. In any case, I've removed it. StuRat (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Army is a Shia security force

There are numerous reports and allegations of mistreatment of the Sunni civilians of Mosul by the Iraqi Army, which is a Shiite dominated security force. They are after an unscrupolous revenge. This should also be mentioned with references that can easily be found on the internet. -78.171.192.197 (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that, while this allegation could very well be correct, if we were to reference the security forces as a Shi'ite group, it would destroy the NPOV in this article. Saying that the security forces are Shi'ite is essentially the same as saying that ISIS is Sunni, because the reason ISIS is even doing horrible things is because of the two Muslim sects. Saying that Sunni Muslims are like ISIS would obviously offend a lot of people. In short, no, don't do that. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

There are now two editors, @EkoGraf: and @Beshogur: restoring Facebook and Tumblr references, [4], I feel like I shouldn't even have to be having this conversation but could there please be a consensus provided that, as per WP:QUESTIONABLE, these are not suitable for use here--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I restored them only once and on the basis that the POV of all combatants/belligerents needs to be presented and not just one side (Iraqi/Coalition). EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Find a reliable source then please--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

They really should not be used - exceptions for Facebook/Twitter are special circumstances like Mosul Eye, who has been deemed a reliable source but does not have another method of communication inside Mosul. Yes, these other POV on combatants should be recognized, but if they are legitimate, there will be reliable sources discussing them as it's all happening outside Mosul and there are hundreds of journalists reporting on every action on every front. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Reuters reported that the PAK were also involved in the battle involving 200 Iranian Kurdish female fighters.

115.135.77.18 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I added that factoid to the part about Peshmerga numbers under the forces section. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Civilian deaths

Lots of daily reports about civilian casualties both inside and outside Mosul, like the IED last night that struck a convoy of families fleeing. Should this be a separate section? That's what I'm thinking. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Where are the International Reactions?

Can we add the reactions soon? For example: http://aa.com.tr/en/todays-headlines/turkey-will-not-forsake-tal-afars-turkmen-cavusoglu/672817 Beshogur (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have no objections to this - I know some people hate "reactions to" sections but it has been heavily discussed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beshogur: It appears someone deleted this section... —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair NPOV summary of Mr Erdogan's policies in this article

Dear UNSC Luke 1021 (talk), if you have an issue concerning NPOV presentation of Mr Erdogan's policies in this article, I think this is the right place to discuss the matter. Concerning the concrete edit we disagree about, I do not think it were a fair summary presentation to say that he "insisted on a role", but not to mention that he did not obtain such role (which is much elaborated in this article). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

There are report that islamic state has re-deployed it's morality police in mosul as a show of force.

2604:2000:1382:40D0:5008:DE7F:893:B08B (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Afghan clothing?

Hello everyone: Under the 16 to 17th of October section, it said fighters had shaved their beards and gotten rid of their "afghan uniforms." Does anyone have any clue what this would mean? I clicked the source and there was also no elaboration.

I find this wording to be very confusing. If anyone could fill me in it would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahraaar (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ISIL executions against own soldiers?

There are multiple reports of ISIL burning 9 of their own fighters in hot oil for attempting to retreat.[5][6][7] Shouldn't this be included somewhere in the article since it is directly related to the battle? Ckasanova (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a subsection "ISIL retributions/retalation" would be welcome. There clearly is a pattern, and sources are available. --Yug (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities as alleged "commanders" in the infobox?

There is a general abuse of the "commander" row in battles in the Syrian Civil War, where random field leader dudes who happen to meet a journalist and be quoted in an article, are added as alleged "commanders" in the infobox of the battle concerned. It has happened here as well, I successfully deleted the random dudes.

Another class of problematic entries is celebrities, who however have nothing to do with commanding the battle at hand. I deleted some of such in this article, too, and with two of them Applodion (talk) - the contributions of whom I cherish much - appears interested in getting them back on.

The celebrities concerned are Hadi Al-Amiri, sourced with [8], and Abu Azrael, sourced with [9]. I humbly ask for opinions, if these dudes would deserve a place as "commanders" in the infobox, in your view. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Applodion, you now start edit-warring. Please do not do that. Discuss here.

Your comment with reverting those dudes into the article was ehm, yes they do: Abu Azrael, who serves as PMF commander, was seen with Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the head of the PMF during the battle, so he is invloved + "Hadi al Ameri [...] claimed to have captured the Mahalabia area".

Al Ameri claimed some military successes of friendly forces in the battle, from his politician desk in Baghdad, while the source does not suggest that he was involved in achieving these successes, even less so as a "commander". Abu Azrael was according to the source "seen with" the PMF commander, which does not make him a commander himself. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it does. Abu Azrael is commander of Kata'ib al-Imam Ali, which is involved in the battle, and he was (according to the referenced article) seen near Mosul with the chief commander of the PMF - that basically confirmed that he is involved as leader (Qasem Soleimani was also only "seen with" important commanders during various battles in Syria, but it was still generally assumed that he planning to these battles). In this article al Ameri directly claims that his forces are advancing under his commander - no matter where he is. Haidar al-Abadi is also in Bagdhad, but the Iraqi army is still under his control. Applodion (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Abu Azrael is not the commander of Kata'ib Al-Imam Ali. Shibl Al-Zaidi is the official commander sourced in many websites such as [10], [11] and [12]. Abu Azrael is a commander of a unit in Kata'ib Al-Imam Ali as recently sourced in [13] which describes his role in their latest operation. Also, Hadi Al-Ameri is the official commander of the Badr Organization which is a known fact across all sources. Hashima20 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

While you appear to agree that Abu Azrael should be taken off the infobox, not sure what your opinion about Hadi Al-Amiri is. Are you sure that the guy actually militarily commands PMF-component Badr (sources I see are not conclusive)? And if he is, wouldn't including him necessitate to include the component-commanders of the other dozen PMF groups involved as well? Would that be justified concerning their actual relevance in commanding actual combat operations? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all PMF groups have the same level of influences in battles. Some groups are more dominant or more popular than others. For example, Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl Al-Haq and the Peace Companies are considered by Iraqis as the most popular groups of the PMF. I think their commanders should be included in the "commanders" section. And Hadi Al-Ameri has numerous photos of him joining the Badr Organization militants in their battles so I don't think this battle should be excluded from his commandment and he is without any doubt the official commander of the organization's political and military wings. Hashima20 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I mostly included Abu Azrael because he is a very prominent commander (though not high-ranking) and involved in the battle. But if most here believe him to be not notable enough, ok, then we can remove him. I agree with Hashima20, however, that Hadi Al-Ameri should be in any case included, as he himself has actually claimed to have commanded the Badr Organization's advances west of Mosul. Applodion (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How about the commander of Asa'ib Ahl Al-Haq, Qais al-Khazali? I think he should be included in the section because his group is one of the most powerful groups in Iraq and the most active PMF group in this battle as seen in many videos from the battle. He also claimed that "his Asa'ib Ahl Al-Haq troops of Mujahideen" liberated many neighborhoods and areas of Mosul as sourced in [14]. The group also is known to be the second largest group in the PMF behind the Peace Companies, who deployed a very small amount of militants for this battle, so most of the PMF's gains should theoretically be credited to the group and their commander. Hashima20 (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Another infobox commander question, the Hezbollah dude. His source says: "Through Kawarithmi, the organization continues to provide training, funding, political and logistical support to Iraqi Shiite militant groups." No hint that he commands anything related to combat in the operation which is the topic of this article. I suggest to remove him. Opinions? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

The terminology "liberated" is non NPOV. Benjamin (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the term being used by WP:RS across wide variety of media sources. It is not our place to change the terminology to consider ISIL's point of view. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Captured" is neutral. Only in quotations should we use the term "liberated". StuRat (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: You're right about common usage, especially in the English-language press, but I have to agree with @Benjaminikuta and StuRat: that it's clearly loaded language. The popularity of the POV that ISIS are "bad guys" doesn't make that more NPOV. Not that WP doesn't use the term often enough already (c.f. Liberation of Paris), but WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply to usage within an article. I'd appreciate a few more comments about this WP:LABEL; a lot has been written about NPOV policy, and this has likely been addressed before. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Captured is not really accurate. This is not capture the flag. These are towns that have been identified for two years as under military occupation by every single source except ISIL propaganda, which is NOT considered a WP:RS. Thus, they are being liberated, and to describe them as such does not violate WP:NPOV as there is no reliable source arguing they were not occupied. This is hardly the same thing as describing, for example, a Pakistani offensive to "liberate" Kashmir from Indian rule, which would violate NPOV. If you can find RS that says these towns were not occupied and thus are not being liberated, than please supply it. Otherwise, we have to go by the RS, which are repeatedly using the term liberated to refer to both the towns and the people in them. They are not trying to "capture" Mosul, they are trying to liberate it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Sorry, the fact that I agree with the value judgement doesn't change the fact that I recognize that it is a value judgement. I have two objections to your statement:

First, granting that Mosul is under military occupation, how does that justify the term "liberation"? I don't see how that follows. When Occupy Wall Street was ejected from Zuccotti Park, was the park "liberated"?

Second, I challenge the assertion that ISIS is a military occupation. It's certainly not listed in Wikipedia's list of military occupations. In particular, a defining characteristic of an occupation is the absence of a claim of permanent sovereignty, which does not describe the Islamic State. It's complicated because most definitions of the term (in e.g. the Hague and Geneva conventions) describe an occupation by an external power, but the fight with ISIS is a civil war, so the definitions do not apply well.

Yes, the English-language press uniformly uses terms like "occupation", but that's specifically to deny the claim of sovereignty. The claim is nonetheless asserted.

And no, I can't find a RS saying that it's not military occupation, but I can't find a RS actually considering the issue and concluding that the term is appropriate, either! Instead, it's just used without considering its appropriateness.

Some negatives are hard to source. For example, I also can't find a RS clearly stating that New York City is not under military occupation!

Note that the Syrian civil war article avoids the terms "liberated" and "liberation", even though the recognized government of Syria is not in serious question. (The one use of the term is in a Washington Post reference which is describing to the transfer of a town from al-Assad's faction to the Free Syrian Army.)

The argument I'd make for use of the term is that "liberation" is a return to civilian control, with the military no longer playing a day-to-day role. But that's a second phase after capture, and has not happened anywhere in Mosul yet. This follows the usage in liberation of Paris, which is described as having achieved the "capture and liberation" of Paris. Two distinct things.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand why ISIL in Mosul/Raqqa etc represents a military occupation, perhaps you should not be editing articles related to ISIL. Might I suggest another topic for you to edit, like botany? —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems relevant: Jarrar, Raed (3 November 2016). "Is it wrong to call Mosul battle a 'liberation'?". Al Jazeera. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I'm not really participating, and don't plan to; my only edit was some awkward grammar I could clean up without needing to understand the subject matter. But your dismissive response avoids the issue. I gave specific reasons, and you're not even trying to address them. Could we try to keep this WP:CIVIL?

Let's not get sidetracked. If we take "military occupation" sensu lato, then I'm quite willing to grant it. It certainly quacks like an occupation: troops in the street, martial law and all that.

The issue under discussion is the term "liberation", not "occupation". I don't want to get bogged down in the definition of the latter; coupling the two is a tangential issue that you introduced.

Whether it's an "occupation" or not has little bearing on whether the term "liberation" is appropriate.

I think the Al Jazeera article I ran across (I actually wasn't looking for it, just general Mosul information) makes @Benjaminikuta:'s point more eloquently than I can: using the term "liberation" is pushing a POV. (And, the article continues, awarding the anti-ISIS forces a mantle of liberty that they don't deserve.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not pushing a POV. It's the term used over and over by the WP:RS and on here, we are required to go by them. It is a fact they are being liberated from a military occupation, so for you to claim that the Iraqi army and peshmerga don't "deserve" to be called liberators reveals your own personal bias. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: please re-read the sentence ending with the word "deserve". Notice it's in parentheses? Notice it's specifically attributed to the article? Notice the word "continues" denoting a tangent? I'm summarizing, for the sake of context, the part of the article that I'm not using as a source for my point. I'm describing the article's POV, not claiming that it should be imported into WP.

We use reliable sources for facts, not phrasing. There are plenty of examples where WP decides to use terminology which is not the most common. WP:POVTITLE and WP:POVNAMING only apply to titles. In the body, the relevant policy is WP:LABEL.

Just for example, Branch Davidians never uses the word "cult". Nor does Waco siege use it to describe the besieged except in quotations. Closer to the subject at hand, neither Syrian Civil war nor any of the detailed timelines use the word "liberate" (except in direct quotes), even though they cite sources which do.

Politically, ISIL is the Big Bad Bogeyman du jour and English-Language sources are overwhelmingly using loaded language in a way that would make Joseph McCarthy proud. Precisely because I don't like them I want to be careful to avoid biased insinuations. Just like a good editor takes WP:PEACOCK language out while importing information from sources, we should take derogatory labels out, too. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's a CNN article where they use the word "liberated", in quotes, and attribute it to a statement they paraphrased from their source: [15]. StuRat (talk)

@StuRat: thank you, but I don't see that word in the linked article. Were you reading an old version? (The version I'm reading says "Updated 3:43 PM ET, Fri November 11, 2016" which is 8:43 UTC; your edit was at 16:07 UTC, so I'd think it's the same one.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Weird, when I go back there, CONTROL F says it found 2 instances of "liberated", but won't jump to either. Could that mean the text has been hidden somehow ? StuRat (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a consensus here? Benjamin (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Error in Nov 24 entry?

In the Nov. 24 Entry it states that 2 quarters reportedly taken control of by Iraqi forces are located on the western edge of Mosul. Shouldn't this say on the eastern edge? I think the said Neighborhoods can be located in the immediate west of Gogdjali. 212.41.120.65 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Also in the edited entry of 24 Nov. there is a place named Quarat Tapa said to be taken from ISIL. (South of Mosul). In Wikimapia, this place is called Quara Tepe. While I don't know enough to suggest which one is the right or better way to write this, we should have a way to normalize syntax of many of these places otherwise they cannot be located correctly which sort of lowers the value of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.120.65 (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC) In the same context as above, the place named Tawajina in this article is called Qaryat Tawajinat in Wikimapia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.120.65 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox : Naqshibandi Army as an allies ? (doubtious)

In the infobox, left (Iraqi-kurds coalition), section "Casualties and losses" listing Iraqi and its allies' loses, I see :

Iraq 83 killed, 255 wounded[33][34][35]
Iraqi Kurdistan 30 killed, 70–100 wounded[33]
United States 1 killed[36]
Naqshibandi Army: 30 captured[37]

I'am quite confuse by the last statement. The Naqshibandi Army is a pro-ISIL faction. So what does this means. The sources is not clearer. --Yug (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the Naqshbandi are anti-ISIL. Sources are sketchy, but they've apparently declared their intention to kill ISIL militants, although they are not officially in any alliance with the other groups, since they are also at war with the Iraqi army, Iraqi Kurdistan, the PMF etc. I don't know how reliable the source is about 30 of them being captured. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A very local alliance then? Yug (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

They are the old Baathist forces and they are anti-ISIS and anti-government. Basically it seems they are willing to join with the government forces to defeat ISIS since they are the greater evil to them. Somewhat like the Right Social Revolution Party members and the Tsarists joining to fight the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. Had they won they'd be fighting again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.157.68.200 (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Soldiers loses and other POV

There were several commanders thas was KIA, but someone removed all commanders from the infobox. The infobox is full with IS loses but what about Iraqi and Kurdish loses? Nothing has updated since a month. Also, since when are Kurdish factions of Sinjar a part of the PMU forces?

There is clearly an iraqi propanganda going on, filtering informations published. It is likely the loses are important, as it was important for the Ramadi battle. If someone find Iraqi causalities sources with either estimates or factual numbers, please add it to the article. --Yug (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of pov. is a matter of access to information. there is very little reliable infos about the casualties of one side, but it's abundant on the other. that is not necesserely push pov or anything. Coltsfan (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of dates after subsection "23 November"?

Somebody has been messing with the information in the details of each day or so, after the subsection "23 November". There was certainly more information, somebody simply removed it, however. Fix this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:44C9:1AD0:1198:18E9:16A8:B83 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It was removed because it was a WP:COPYPASTE copyright violation. For that reason, it can't be restored in the same form. MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see. I did see it did plagiarize when I read the news articles used for it, thought I would change it but wouldn't risk incorrect formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:44C9:1AD0:1198:18E9:16A8:B83 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties Count

The template in the article shows "926 civilians killed". However, the article linked as a proof and the relevant UN report both state that 926 is a figure for the entire Iraq, not just Mosul.

"In counting civilian casualties, UNAMI included Sahwa civil defence, Personal Security Details, facilities protection police and fire department personnel. In November, these groups were among the 926 civilians killed, including seven federal police, and the 930 injured, including 18 federal police. Fifty-two foreign civilians were also killed and 31 injured.

Baghdad, the worst affected Governorate, suffered 733 civilian casualties –152 killed and 581 injured. Elsewhere, 332 were killed and 114 injured in Ninewa (Ninewa is a province of which Mosul is the capital); 60 killed and 88 injured in Salahadin; 56 killed and 23 injured in Babil; and in Kirkuk, 18 were killed and 17 injured."

Source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55703#.WEKhgLKLTIU --Vallar57 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Shabak Shia Kurdish militia and PKK afilliated Sinjar Kurdish militia

Both are different, Shabak militia is the part of PMU while Sinjar militia recieves support from PMU but it isn't part of PMU. Beshogur (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a well sourced fact that the Republic of Iraq has authorized these diverse forces, including the "PKK afilliated Sinjar Kurdish militia" (among the sources is even a Daily Sabah article whining about it). You may hate this fact, but your hate is no reason to delete this fact from the infobox of the article. Stay cool. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact of they're being supported by the Baghdad government doesn't make them PMU, that's my point. And yes they are "PKK afilliated" if you look at Kurdish news agencies, you can see that PKK is active at this front and give support to those militias. Beshogur (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You should give source about "YBSH is part of PMU" Beshogur (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Calling every member organization of the KCK "PKK affiliated" is polemicist in the same way as it would be to call every member state of the EU "Germany-affiliated". Anyway, I am not so sure how this PMF thing formally works, so presenting the YBŞ and YJÊ not as a "member" of the PMF is fine with me, as long as the infobox leaves no doubt concerning the fact that this "PKK afilliated Sinjar Kurdish militia" is a force authorized, sanctioned and funded by the Republic of Iraq. I reverted your last edit because it sought to present them as outside of the Iraqi forces, which is plain wrong. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok stop with this discussion, but YBSH is not a part of PMU. Beshogur (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Still no answer, 2A1ZA do you have any source about Sinjar militia being part of the PMU? Beshogur (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now added source number four to the infobox, this one about the "PKK afilliated Sinjar Kurdish militia" being funded out of the PMF budget of the Iraqi government. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mediocre daily entries

Seriously, if anybody is going to be adding daily entries for the timelines, don't make them mediocre. At least put effort into it. This is a simple criticism, so don't take it too personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:44C9:1AD0:D5F7:BB19:3B68:5DE3 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I fix up a lot of those entries. I would guess that they are made by those who speak English as a second language. I'm glad they contribute the facts, and am happy to clean up their English later. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I was simply thinking that the daily entries didn't specify much. Unless that's what simply happened each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:44C9:1AD0:EC3A:C6D5:E7E4:F7C (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable interpretations of news sources in the article -

Just looking at what an International Business Times article actually said, and what was added to the article as a fact, is very different. Also, editors need to be more conscious of relating statements with, for example, "according to Human Rights Watch" - rather than presenting something as a hard fact. HRW has been shown countless times to have an agenda (left-wing, critical of democracies) and their reporting needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as they've often been shown to exaggerate. That's just one example of one organization. Just a heads up. 104.169.44.33 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Can I just remind everyone that sites like Tumblr and Facebook are not reliable sources? You can find a much more reliable source just as easy in the newspaper or a news website! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, see my comment above. These should be avoided. The page is semi-protected again so hopefully we will see less of this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange perverting of cited source. Wikipedia article says: "The Battle of Mosul was also concurrent with the latest Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) by the Syrian government against rebel groups unrelated to Islamic State in the Syrian city of Aleppo.[62]"

However, the source says absolutely clear that rebels in Aleppo are controlled by Quaeda and ISIS allies. "all the evidence is that these can only operate in east Aleppo under license from the al-Qaeda-type groups." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-aleppo-iraq-mosul-isis-middle-east-conflict-assad-war-everything-youve-read-could-be-wrong-a7451656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.236.111.102 (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Daily copyright violations

IP users keep adding these day-by-day progress reports citing Iraqinews. I have had to remove so many of these because the entries are copy-pasted from the articles they cite. This is a copyright violation, even if you add a word here or there to change it up. Likewise, these reports are often very trivial. In light of these two things, here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to remove any new additions that cite this source, and I will be removing existing ones unless they show notable developments. Eik Corell (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest locking the article until sufficient information is compiled to a certain date before doing any additions? This would also help, in part, the above complaint of "mediocre" entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.145.173 (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, this is going way too far. Wikipedia is built on the idea that anyone can edit, and then we fix up or remove any bad edits later. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's utter rubbish. Articles are locked all the time for the good of the project, or semi-protected. After the vandal IP's get tired or bored, then they are tentatively unlocked. 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.44.33 (talk)

Not really; "vandal IP's" are those who write simple crap, basically "f*** this, f*** that", not regular people attempting to put in information. Banning vandals is one thing, locking the article to stop changes and allow sufficient and adequate information to be collected is another thing, and that goes with what I meant as "mediocre entries". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:44C9:1AD0:D5E7:4DAC:F447:B73B (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I cite Amaq news as a source?

Wondering whether or not it counts for Wikipedia. As far as I know it is a valid source, even if biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on the bias. If they report the actual facts, but with biased language, like "the evil terrorists fled from district X on date Y, like the cowards they are", then it could either be used as a fully attributed quote, or made neutral as something like "ISIL withdrew from district X on date Y". However, if the facts are manipulated, too, then there's little value in it as a news source. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I have seen it is unbiased. I would normally consider it a reliable source, however it is run by Islamic State itself. Not sure if it is a valid source - it is a bit of a grey area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hard to believe anything from IS would be unbiased, as extremist organizations facing defeat aren't known for their commitment to journalistic integrity (think Nazi Germany near the end). At the very least I'd expect them to refer to the US and Europe as "the invading Christian crusaders". StuRat (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is actually quite reliable and does not use biased language, surprising as that might be. I'm just wondering if it is against any wikipedia policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic map needed

We need a video/map that shows the daily change in the front lines. Since reports seem to be on neighborhoods being in ISIL control, in battle, or under control by various non-ISIL groups, we might want to make the map so the color of each neighborhood can be swapped between a small number of choices, identified on a legend/key/index. I'm afraid this is all beyond my capabilities, though. Is anyone able to do this for us ? StuRat (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking https://isis.liveuamap.com/ as one such map. Rendering it here might be an issue, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:44C9:1AD0:EC3A:C6D5:E7E4:F7C (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Can anyone here do this type of thing ? StuRat (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@StuRat doing a similar external map website is not so hard. The difficulties are that

1/ we cannot include outside webpage directly into wikipedia

2/ we must have enough good willed editor to collect the needed data.

So as of now, few of us are focusing on using external sources to edit and update SVG maps on wikipedia/commons. I think we are 2 editors for Mosul, Kami888 and myself. Yug (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

By dynamic video/map, do you mean a map where you can go back in history and see which neighborhood belonged to whom on any particular date? Because that's pretty much the only advantage of liveuamap that I see compared to what we have now. And as we continue to update the battle of Mosul map, we will also have a history that one can refer to, unfortunately it will not be date-by-date but rather by-update basis, where in between updates you can assume that the situation probably didn't change. But overall it's not that different from liveuamap already. Kami888 (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Maps : Help needed !

Please help to update the maps. You can help with data collection or graphic (svg) editing.

Maps

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Early sources

• http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/17/world/middleeast/iraq-mosul-isis-map.html -- last update : 2016/11/02
• https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/latest-battlefield-map-mosul/ -- last update : 2016/10/31
• http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/021120162 -- last update for text : 2016/11/22, last update for map : ???
• Bataille de Mossoul : le recul de l’Etat islamique cartographié jour par jour

Data (major advances)

Please help us to complete this table with key victories. Namely, we need the villages or districts names, dates. If possible with sources. Map makers will use these data to draw dated control-lines.

Front	Village / districts	Date & reference	Event
Generalist	Initial positions.	10/17	Initial positions.
East	Bashika	...	Pershmerga victory
South	Baghdede	...	Iraqi army victory
North	Tel Keppe	...	Besieged by Iraqi Army
West	Western front offensive	...	Iraqi Militia victories
West	Tal-afar military base	11/16	Iraqi Militia victory over ISIS
S.East	Qaryat as Salamiyah	11/20	Iraqi Army victory
East?	(Muharabeen, Ulama/Ulamaa neighborhoods (adjacent to Tahrir neighborhood))	11/20	Iraqi Militia (PMF) victory
West	Raqqa-Mosul road cut note: 3,000 families left Tal Afar, half to Syria, half northward to Kurds	11/23	Iraqi Militia victory over ISIS
South-East	Hawsalat; Tawajina, Qarat Tapa,Yarghinti ; not:Julukhan	11/2-23	Iraqi Army victories
...	...	...	...
...	...	...	...

--Yug (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on making an updated map (and one for refugee camps), but it's really time-consuming. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@—Мандичка, there are new backgrounds. Easy to edit ! :) --Yug (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

MrPenguin20 just provided awesome background maps. Big thanks to him !

I'am currently focused on monitoring military progresses and editing the Raqqa offensive's map. The Mosul offensive is 3 times more complex since there are 3~4 fronts to monitor. Your eyes and help are welcome.

Let's collect data in a clean manner so we can provide a solid and elegant map. --Yug (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey... guys... I feel pretty lonely on this one... ^^ --Yug (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I found a new font of maps of the battle by district. I do not speak Arabic, so I ask for someone who speak Arabic to verify those maps:
http://www.mosulyoon.net
G.J.S. (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Turkish desire of involvement

This sub-section needs to be updated as a consensus was reached between Turkey and Iraq on the matter. -Human like you (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed - Timeline of the Battle of Mosul

What do you think about splitting the timeline off into another page, if the fighting to take the city itself drags on? I'm thinking that if they are retaking neighborhood by neighborhood, this could be another month. We could have a summary on this page and keep the timeline going on another page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I see no reason for having a blow by blow of the battle in this article, especially when the fight is expected to last many weeks (if not months). Coltsfan (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. The timeline is getting to be a bit... long, shall we say. If this battle continues (which I expect it will), the timeline may overtake the rest of the page. And then someone's probably going to post a {{very long}} template on it, so we'd have to take action then anyways. --The Phase Master (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion. I have an idea for the timeline title. Instead of what you have put, I would rather put "Battle of Mosul timeline". Not only would it sound more encylopedic, but it would also help WP's search engine like so: Let's say you're (obviously enough), searching for the timeline. You could just put in Battle of Mosul, and then you'd get suggestions such as: Battle of Mosul and Battle of Mosul timeline. Simple enough, no? --The Phase Master (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment we can put the timeline title in Battle timeline section, I think that best.--Solider 16IQ (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that title, thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not agree.I do not think the battle will stay for months, victory is coming and Iraqi troops entered the eastern neighborhoods of Mosul, so I do not support it, but that the battle lasted move the page.--Solider 16IQ (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends on what happens. They finally entered the city but ISIL retreated to other parts of the city. They have predicted it will take a month to retake the city completely. This is not an urgent change but something to think about if it plays out as predicted. - —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Support The timeline is already awkwardly long, and the battle isn't over. As for the name of the split page, I'm not fussy, but "Timeline of..." is generally how such articles are named on Wikipedia. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Disagree I believe that we should not make a timeline until after the conflict resolves. Information on the news or even from the US Army can't be considered concrete until the conflict ends and they can check stats like body count, troops deployed, length of battle etc.,. It'll be too difficult to keep up with an unreliable timeline. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split to a new article entitled "Timeline of the Battle of Mosul". --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Disagree The battle timeline is the core of this article, everything else is background and context to it. Rather than splitting its core away, this article should be relieved of fat (which another editor and I started to do in yesterday). And if this is not enough, then rather split away the "Humanitarian issues" and/or the "Context" section. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Disagree The timeline of the battle is basically the very core of the article, per the user above. Also, the battle is about half over, and an article twice the size of the current one wouldn't present much navigational difficulties (as opposed to a single article for the 4-year Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)). The article is highly organized and divided into multiple smaller categories, so editing into this article isn't presenting enough of a problem to actually justify an article split. As for the length, it would be almost pointless to generate an entirely separate "timeline" article the likes of which would be over 100,000 KB (probably over 200,000 KB) by the end of the battle. The other components of the article barely added that much more length, so it would be more convenient to keep the article as a whole. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tal Afar

Are we going to include the operation to free Tel Afar in this article, or in a separate one? Because Tel Afar is encircled with Mosul in the same pocket, by the same forces currently besieging Mosul. The Tel Afar operation is probably going to happen either during the operation to retake west Mosul or just after the conclusion of the retaking of west Mosul. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I would personally prefer starting an entirely different article for the upcoming Tel Afar offensive, when it does happen. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

6 February reference to Anbar

The entry on 6 February about an operation in Anbar would seem inappropriate for this article since it isn't anywhere close to Mosul. In fact, the cited article states that it isn't part of the Mosul offensive. Should this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestForTheTrees (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No longer a battle?

I would classify this as more of an invasion and less of a battle at this point, because normally a battle doesn't last this long? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Invading from where to where? MPS1992 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say they would be invading the Nineveh Governorate as a whole, rather than simply the city of Mosul. They've already taken 2500 sq. miles from ISIS, larger than the state of Delaware. The Nineveh Governorate is 14,500 sq. miles, which is larger than Normandy, France. The invasion of Normany is widely considered an invasion so why not the invasion of Nineveh? It fills all of the criteria. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the criteria? MPS1992 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"a sustained fight between large, organized armed forces." That is a battle. There is no criteria for how long a battle is since WWI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:F506:B7E:C234:6D9 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The battle of Stalingrad lasted 5 months, and this was with absolutely total disregard for civilian casualties. The battle of Mosul is taking so long, as they are trying to minimize civilian casualties. If we had no regard for civilian casualties or radioactive fallout, the battle could have lasted less than 30 minutes. So it's still a battle, regardless how long it takes to wrap up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.139.183 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Grew Lazy

Just saying that this article grew lazy. 2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:C934:9E1B:AA38:8A4C (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a lot of action is taking place. There isn't anything much notable to add. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there any news stating when the next phase will happen?2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:A1C9:1AEF:6AAC:98E1 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, is there any such news? The article can only be updated when there are independent reliable sources that mention what has happened. MPS1992 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:A1C9:1AEF:6AAC:98E1:@MPS1992: - Just wanted to point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't include information about what we assume will happen next, only things that the CJTF or the Iraqi Armed Forces says will definitely happen in the near future. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: like I said, if independent reliable sources mention it, then it is fair game. Until then... MPS1992 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992: - OK, thank you for clarifying. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is merely a summary of other sources. Like a parasite, it merely scours these sources to derive its content. The particular way in which it puts together these sources to derive its content as minimally reshaped individual pieces does not result in any emergent properties or derived insights. A broader synthesis of all sources would not be original research, but shaping several sources concurrently to derive the relevant big picture is well beyond wikipedia's practical skill set. For topics like this a reader really would be much better getting some traditional media for a deeper insight into what is going on and why this process in Mosul is taking so long. 104.250.187.45 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well I just added a new part for February 18 regarding the coalition forces stating an imminent mission to begin soon.2601:2C6:4505:CBF0:B4B1:D3BC:33D4:5F01 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Word Choice and Orthography

The author wrote a great article, but he used questionably non-academic words. In the introduction the author chose to use the word "hyped" and it seemed unfitting for the rest of the article's content. The article seemed to deviate from its clear and detailed analysis. There were a few grammatical mistakes interlaid in the passage as well. Jeremybernick (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to substitute a more appropriate word. Wikipedia articles are mostly written by many authors, not just one. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to "promoted". StuRat (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Too short to be separate

From a recent edit comment days are combined. I would rather see days separated so we know what happened on what day. I don't think the size of the update matters. What do you think? Changing subjects: the updates are mostly written from the Iraqi government side. I would prefer if we used wording such as: according to General... or Iraqi News site ... etc. That way the article is less favoring one side and less subject to exaggerations from one side.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The events from multiple days should be combined if they are relatively small or insignificant to the overall battle itself, as has been the standard practice on other similar articles. Otherwise, we could end up with an inflated number of subheadings. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia subheadings are of the form === text ===. We haven't been using those for Feb. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to those. I was referring to a non-editing section format used, like

10 February 2017.

If we used the standard subheadings like the ones you mentioned above, it would get out of control. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A separate subsection for each day certainly makes editing simpler. As it is now, I have to edit the entire month and hope I don't get an edit conflict. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent orthography

Would you please use one system of capitalisation consistently. "February 2017, Human Rights Watch issued a report regarding the violation of the laws of war in Iraq. According to the report, Islamic state fighters occupied Al-Salam hospital..." but later same paragraph the layout of capitalisation becomes "they occupied other clinics in other towns controlled by the Islamic State fighters. 104.250.187.45 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The S in Islamic State should always be capitalized, when referring to the group. Feel free to fix it. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thing is @StuRat: that there is a long history of utterly disgusting and futile persistent sniping misbehaviour by wikipedians targeting article edits from this region of the world. Just a fact. So I decline to engage in direct article edits as that is a completely infantile waste of my time, dealing with utterly retarded people making completely stupid responses to any Pakistan based edits. If you acknowledge the suggested error should be corrected, please take it on as a tiny good deed on behalf of the encyclopaedia and not push those who are going to have their time wasted by Western hypocrites on to the front line. Thanks so very very much for helping out. ia 104.250.187.29 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I do when I see them. But I doubt if anyone would criticize you for that. I for one, realize that many of the editors for this article won't be proficient in English, so just try to fix up their wording without changing the content. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If I were to use a capital letter the track record is I will have a "friendly chat" about aggrandizing the subject of the noun we are discussing, and if I use a regular font a discussion will ensue about usage examples (for both options). I'd prefer to stay out of it. Thanks so very very much for helping out. Have a great day. I'll leave it to your discretion what is or isn't done here. 104.250.187.29 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

I would like to know what the justification for this revert is. I've made the edit prior because none of the other monthly sections incorporate subsection syntaxes despite being collated in similarly long lengths, and the day-by-day subsections for the November 2016 section overwhelmingly clutter the table of contents. - 210.195.222.222 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Source Reliability

The Allegations against anti-ISIL forces section ends by noting "The fundamentalist Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is linked to the "Middle East Monitor". The source cited for this is a bare bones page at The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch which doesn't cite any reasons for this link. The Middle East Monitor might be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, but this source doesn't seem to support that premise. 173.8.105.201 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Timeline not easy to read

I came to this page to read, not to edit. I find the timeline to be almost completely unreadable, like a diary, not an article. Where are the major stages of the battle? What are the major events? The day by day organization may be necessary to grab events as they unfold, the most recent updates. But to maintain the entire timeline as a day by day script challenges the reader: read everything, or go away. This should be fixed. Jd2718 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

I've found a spelling error in content 2.2.3 - 22 March in the 5th line: "change ca[tured to captured" Smiladmousavi (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Already done — IVORK _Discuss 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on protected page

Can someone open this page to anyone so that everybody can edit? Malayedit (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Malayedit: - Sorry, but that can't happen. The page is protected due to mass vandalism from IP addresses. You should get at least ten edits total to be able to edit this article, but the protection can't come down until at least September. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

But I just want to edit the infobox section relating to the ISIL commanders and leaders cause there are many ISIL commanders that have not yet been mention in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayedit (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Malayedit: - copy the template below in plaintext (not in editor mode), paste it into a new section, and write underneath the template what you want to include. A passing editor will help you out.

{{edit semi-protected|Battle of Mosul (2016–17)|answered=no}}

UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Barzani

I don't want to markup the infobox, but can someone provide a citation for Barzani being President of Iraqi Kurdistan - maybe one that gives context about the creation of the office and the Iraqi constitution. I am asking because the issue of Kurdistan is disputed by Turkey and could be controversial, so it should be cited. The only source I have found confirming or using this title in news is Rudaw, which is a partisan source does anyone have something better? Reuters, the DOD Turkish sources, and al Monitor all refer to him as President of the "Regional Kurdish Government" so I fixed the language Seraphimsystem (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources, the Kurdish Regional Government itself: http://cabinet.gov.krd/p/p.aspx?l=12&p=232 and http://www.presidency.krd/english/ndisplay.aspx?sm=oJeOd5f59dk= 2 Turkish dailies referring to him as president: https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2017/02/28/pm-yildirim-meets-with-krg-leader-barzani-in-ankara "Minister Binali Yıldırım and Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Masoud Barzani." http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/barzani-has-one-wise-and-safe-option-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=110288&NewsCatID=586 "The discussions the president of the Regional Kurdish Administration (KRG) in northern Iraq, Massoud Barzani, had in Turkey were noteworthy." (Sabah and Huriyet). Other international news sources (more bare links): (Iraq News, "President") http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/abadi-says-no-change-withdrawal-arrangements-kurdistan/ "controversial remarks made by Kurdish President Masud Barzani" and (The Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/kurdish-independence-closer-than-ever-says-massoud-barzani "The president of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish north has called on global leaders... Masoud Barzani, who has led the troubled country’s Kurds for the past decade..." Sorry for messy links, but they may help. Jd2718 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I changed it to Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government where I could find it, I created President of Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government and move President of Iraqi Kurdistan there, so let's please use the correct name from now on (KRG). The Iraqi Kurdistan page refers to the area as an "autonomous region" and I'm not sure that's correct either. Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

ISIS, not ISIL

The name ISIL is out of date, ISIS is the correct term now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.148.10 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What would we do with Isis' page? Seraphimsystem (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Mosul Timeline

This article is way too long. I suggest we remove the day by day summaries and replace them with shorter summaries of november, december, january and february. That, or we put the timeline of iraq in its own article or something. Crewcamel (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it fits the wikipedia style, but I love the amount of detail. I hope it gets to exist somewhere. Subcelestial (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Subcelestial: when or if the material gets summarized, the detail will likely still exist in the revision history of this article. So anyone interested in making sure it can easily be read somewhere, could copy it from the article revision history, suitably attributed, to an appropriate place on another website, for example Wikia. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Better than having the detail tucked away in the history, or on another website, would be to eventually move it to another Wikipedia article such as "Timeline of the Battle of Mosul (2016-7)". 58.173.37.109 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Pentagon

change The ((Pentagon)) to ((The Pentagon))

 Done Thank you for noticing this mistake. MPS1992 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Need equipment losses added

Perhaps someone could add IS claims of equipment figures for iraqi losses

According to IS 47 Abrams tanks, 39 other tank types, 125 BMP variants, 879 Humvees and 585 miscallaneous vehicles have been destroyed Further 7 helicopters were damaged/destroyed, 52 various UAVs downed (source: Amaq agency info graphic)

Perhaps someone could do some hard work and look through the US daily strike reports and tally the equipment totals for US claims of destroyed IS equipment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:6D42:9B00:99BE:482:C2C9:1A48 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

IS claims of equipment destroyed should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Main battle tanks equivalent to the Abrams have been known to take literally dozens of close range hits from RPGs without being destroyed. A hit from a TOW or a very large IED might be sufficient, but managing 47 kills in the one battle would appear far-fetched, especially as the Iraqi army and police are making such extensive use of Humvees rather than MBTs. MPS1992 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Have to remember these claims are for the whole of the operation including the outside approaches to mosul where IS set up numerous ATGM kill zones Anyway the point is the word 'claimed'. I wasnt vouching for its accuracy. Needs to be in there with the (IS claim) as a note for the article to be complete though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:6D42:7100:EC01:4713:6270:5D14 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New Updates May 20 2017

I think the map is now outdated. A week since May 13, many more areas have been liberated from ISIS. This center called Nineveh Media Center does a good job at showcasing the ongoing changes. Here is the map for May 20; I don't know how to insert it. Thanks! --Smghz (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Each day is a section

Seems like Izzat Ibrahim Ad Douri should be removed as a belligerent since he has been relatively confirmed dead since before the battle started and the source is extremely questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:4301:CD73:988D:D94E:8A9F:8BC1 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is every day of November its own section, but not December or any other months. If we're going to do something like that, we should at least be consistent with it instead of being lazy. Are we keeping each day a section or not? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Table of contents limited so that november doesn't show up there, so at least toc is not an issue. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should, otherwise we end up with really long sections. Alfie Gandon (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about his status, but first of all, he is not dead. 2601:2C6:4501:BD50:B99A:6159:6F4B:E7CB (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it has not been confirmed. There was actually a video/audio recording of him surfacing around on YT. He is very likely to be alive, and that the person killed just resembled him. thanks. --Smghz (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)