Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Time to Start Condensing Article?

As the battle appears to be winding down, is it time to start condensing the article to make it more readable? Are there such long articles for other famous battles throughout history with day-by-day information? It is more likely the length is from the article being linked to from the front page for a good amount of time. Synesthetic (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Good, keep it that way. You can condense it when the battle is over. 2601:2C6:4501:BD50:B99A:6159:6F4B:E7CB (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Synesthetic. This is in need of condensation. Jd2718 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The day-by-day detail may be tedious, but it is not badly researched. I for my part would find this depth of detail useful for World War II battles. What about splitting it into Timeline articles?

• Timeline of the Battle of Mosul (October-December 2016)
• Timeline of the Battle of Mosul (January-March 2017)
• Timeline of the Battle of Mosul (April 2017-present)

Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in an earlier thread here. The consensus was to keep the article together as one, and to trim down on other sections, and maybe do some condensing work on daily battle action chunks after the end of the battle. To make things short, I will summarize the main reason why the consensus was against a split: the vast majority of content in this article is about the battle itself, so the close focus on its daily (at least important) actions are appropriate for an article of this scale and importance. Furthermore, the fact that the amount of detail useful would be "appropriate for World War II battles" is another reason why there shouldn't be a split. The amount of detail is rather useful. It can be a be tedious, but some condensing after the conclusion of the battle would fix the problem. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Only the battle for the city to be put in this article? Do not insert the battle from rural areas to the west to Syria?

This is one of my proposal because the Iraqi Army on April 24, began an entirely different and separate military operation that is separate from the parent Battles for the city of Mosul. Battles van the town center should be transferred to this new Section My Mosul-Deir Ezzor-Palmyra offensive to be the best way because I have no experience with finesse. The siege on Al Kairavan not part of the struggle for the city of Mosul because it is too far to the west, closer to the border of Iraq-Syrian. This leads hilly desert fighting type. The city of Mosul in a few days will be 100% free of ISIL members. The real work of the Iraqi army waiting in the west to the border with Syria, and probably in Syria. We'll see. The article is the easiest to change, delete or correct. There are here and experienced many years of moderators and admins who know what I'm saying. Please help in the editing on this article. Mosul-Deir Ezzor-Palmyra --Baba Mica (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Those operations and their major gains should me mentioned, due to their significance and relation to this battle. However, the new operations west of Mosul should not be included in extreme detail; the actual day-today action should be moved into a new article, like Nineveh campaign (2016–present). (PS, new article you linked should be split up or renamed, because there is no evidence that all of those offensives are directly being coordinated by the main combatants.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Archives Issue

Why aren't the archives for this talk page visible? I can see in the editing window that the template is there, but for some reason it is not showing up. The archives list/section should be showing up right below the "talk header" section at the very top of the page. I've tried a number of times to fix this issue, but nothing seems to work. Can someone please fix this problem? The lack of easy access to past discussions is going to prove to be an issue as time goes on. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I did this correctly, but it should be visible now. It only has one page in Archive, though. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 03:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Proper use of commas

I've noticed incorrect comma usage, which I correct whenever I see it, but I'd prefer not to need to:

CORRECT: Organization X, while attacking village Y, killed...

The tendency is to leave either the opening or closing comma out. You can possibly leave both commas out, but you can't open a clause and not close it, or vice versa. Think of them like parentheses, when used in this way. The clause could be removed and it would still be a complete sentence. Commas used to separate a list of items are different, of course. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal from front page

It appears the article has been removed from the front page "ongoing" events, not sure if by mistake or deliberate. The Marawi Crisis shows, which may seem to have resulted in somebody replacing the article instead of adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4501:BD50:B92C:8B73:F5C9:75FF (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason may be that the article is simply too bad quality at present to be linked from the main page. At present there is a huge list of day-by-day mini-sections repeating things that were in the news on that particular day, including simplistic statements such as 4 people died or 3 villages were captured (without even naming the villages!). Proper quality articles are not structured like that. MPS1992 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that the battle is current and major/strategic/important enough for coverage. 2601:2C6:4501:BD50:B92C:8B73:F5C9:75FF (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. So perhaps it could be listed once it is adequate quality. MPS1992 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Adequate quality won't happen until the battle ends. It has already been discussed multiple times that the article will be recollected and organized after that happens. 2601:2C6:4501:BD50:B92C:8B73:F5C9:75FF (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That solves the problem, then -- once the battle is over, there is no need for it to appear under 'Ongoing' on the Main Page. MPS1992 (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Dates

The timeline format is horrible. One would have to sacrifice 2 cows to Zeus to reach 31 Nov 2016 for example, especially on mobile phone. I suggest either:

1. Make a page called Timeline of The Battle of Mosul (2016-present) and remove all the mess from the original article, or
2. instead of dividing the timeline in the article into 2016 and 2017 let us divide it into "Nov 2016", "Dec 2016", "Jan 2017" etc etc...

 • Sammy Majed  • Talk  • Creations • Wikipedia Arabic  • 10:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I would favor the second option, but with the caveat that material that is clearly 'mess' should be condensed or removed, not just moved into differently structured headings. My reason for favoring the second option is that where material is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia, the solution is not to move it out of high-profile articles into dumping-ground articles for mess. MPS1992 (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Refer to the post above. I did say that there are intentions of restructuring the article after information collection is complete (when the battle is over). And as MPS1992 has said, the second option is better. I'm sure the article won't be too long once condensation happens nor will it look like a dumping ground. But for now, the article does look like a dumping ground due to people simply adding status updates. Whatever is most important, though, is to keep the citations without removing any, and instead condensing sentences, or days (or any other units of relative time) for the better purpose of a smoother flow. 2601:2C6:4501:BD50:B92C:8B73:F5C9:75FF (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Start removing details that are clearly too minor to survive the final article. There are a lot! And they are all cited. Jd2718 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive issue #2

Can someone more knowledgeable than me please take a look at the archiving templates? I attempted to solve the lack of talk page archive index some time ago, but it seems like the bot is now archiving all past conversations (older than 14 days) into the same archive. Is that expected behavior? That archive is getting too hard to navigate through. Also, is there a way to split an archive? That might be handy. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

Please change the text in "References" section, ref. 800, from [hhttp://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/iraqi-forces-retake-half-last-held-district-near-mosuls-old-city/ "Iraqi forces retake half of last IS-held district near Mosul’s Old City"] to "Iraqi forces retake half of last IS-held district near Mosul’s Old City" in order to make the external link accessible (one "h" in "http" is currently redundant). Thanks in advance.--89.173.36.108 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: There is no reference to that story in the article currently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually, the issue has already been fixed.--89.173.36.108 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article Move Time

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

"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)

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)

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)

Agree. This is necessary at this stage. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Like so? TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2017

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

Not done: jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terra ^(talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Deadliest Urban battle since WW2 is wrong.

General Stephen Townsend who said it is the deadliest urban battle since WW2 is wrong. Tet Offensive and Second Battle of Seoul as well as others have more casualties. Maybe deadliest urban battle in Iraq since WW2 is what he meant.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Unknown if this is the deadliest urban battle since WW2. The Second Battle of Seoul claimed 363 UN/US/SKOR lives compared to an unknown number of NKOR lives. The Tet offensive was a series of engamenments, with the most notable urban engagement being the Battle of Huế. That particular battle claimed 668 American and South Vietnamese lives against 5,133 North Vietnamese lives. The Battle of Mosul has currently claimed an estimated 1010 anti-ISIL coalition lives compared to a maximum estimate of 10,987 to 11,987 ISIL lives (US claim is around 2000+ militant dead.) This would imply that this was the deadliest urban combat since World War 2. However, this argument of mine is irrelevant as a much more definitive source will need to be cited to back up the statement by Gen. Townsend. Nothing should be added at this time. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Then the Second Battle of Quảng Trị and Liberation of Khorramshahr is a better example with higher death tolls. My point is it is false information to have that posted in the lead to the article even though the General said it.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is a good one. We would need to cited more reliable sources to include the claim, which the general's statement should be considered. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No, the point is whether or not the battle is ongoing, and it still is.XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Residual fighting always happens after every major battle in this war. This was discussed in other articles, to similar conclusion. Main military operations have ended, and it's now just a mopping-up operation. But most sources in the article seems to back the notion that the battle has pretty much ended. Coltsfan (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the battle is a coalition victory, but the same sources that say its a victory say that the fighting is ongoing.XavierGreen (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There is small "residual fighting" and "clean up operations", same as it happened in places like Aleppo, and Homs, and Palmyra. But, like i said, and like the sources said, the main battle is in fact done. Coltsfan (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The battle is officially over people. Move on it's over.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:50A7:5710:CEF8:AFDF (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a moot point really. An established source has cited the battle as being over, our right to synthesize has limits on an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Coltsfan, when it comes to Aleppo, Palmyra, etc, we closed those battles after ALL of the fighting in those cities had ceased. Fighting hasn't ceased in Mosul and in fact an air-strike took place TODAY [2]. The established source is the Iraqi Prime Minister, who isn't really reliable when it comes to this sort of thing as one of the beligerents in the conflict. If it was Reuters or AFP who said the battle is over then yes, that would be a situation where a verifiable source confirmed an Iraqi victory. Wikipedia is not here to take sides but to remain neutral and present the facts. And fact is, per available sources, despite what the Iraqi government claimed, fighting is still taking place. In any case, agree with StuRat and XavierGreen. And also with MonsterHunter32 that the question should be whether all IS territory has been seized (and apparently militants still hold a few pockets). EkoGraf (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember when George W Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq, before the majority of casualties ? You can't trust the belligerents to give an objective opinion. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Mission Accomplished" speech didn't end the Iraq War, but it did mark the end of the invasion of Iraq. Coltsfan (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bush administration at the time thought the Iraq War had ended with the invasion and that was it. In any case, more sources [3][4][5]. EkoGraf (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Not Officially Dead Yet

Would someone please remove the deceased cross (killed in Action symbol) from his name? Headlines that have rumors of his death have been popping up recently but not officially confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Even ISIL admits that he's dead. It's hard to imagine that they would say so if he wasn't, as losing their leader will be a serious blow to their continued existence. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

ISIL in Tal Afar said it, not the whole organisation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And now, Iraqi intelligence has disproved the recent death claims. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't believe they have offered any proof. They just claimed that he is still alive. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let me ask what it would hurt to leave it in, if it's boxed up so they only see it by hitting the SHOW button. I don't think it even affects the page load time, until the box is opened. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't show the battle as ongoing

User:LightandDark2000 edited to show the battle as ongoing. While there are holdouts and hiding militants, what is going on is clearly clearing operations, the same.thing that happened in Manbij. It is not rare that fighters still remain and fight after being defeated and indulge in insurgency. For example, see the Japanese holdouts, they continued battling against areas under former Japanese Empire even after Japan was defeated either in errant belief or other reasons. Howver, this does not mean that World War II continued until everyone surrendered.

The battle was for capturing the city and there's nothing indicating the militants still hold territory in Mosul. Holdouts are simply those who refuse to surrender or stop fighting. Therefore it is unwise to present it as still ongoing. Insurgency will continue in Mosul for long after its capture at hands of remnants and cells just like it does in other cities like Fallujah captured by Iraq. I hope you understand and at least discuss instead of straight away opening it and doing what you think is right. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In Japan there was a formal WW2 surrender, but there's no such thing in Mosul, so we must use other means to determine when the battle is over. Statements by the Iraqi government seem just as likely to be propaganda as truth, but if neutral observers, and even ISIL, admit that Mosul has been recaptured, then it's time to declare the battle over here. StuRat (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

But the holdouts fought even in territories that were captured by Allies. The point here is that the battle was for capturing Mosul. In other cities too insurgency keeps ongoing after their capture. There's nothing indicating the militants still hold territory. Eveb the group itself is not opposing that it lost [6]. It's unwise to present it as ongoing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't care anymore who is right or who is wrong... but please, PLEASE, stop changing it before a consensus is reached. I don't care if you consider the current version "the wrong one", just stop the WP:EW for now, all parties, ok? Muchas thanks. Coltsfan (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say the end date of July 10th is wrong, since there were multiple airstrikes in the city on the 11th. But, the battle may well have ended since then. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that there were airstrikes and fighting. However, they were part of clearing operations and not the logistical gains of battle. The Battle of Mosul ended on July 10.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's according to one of the beligerent's, not a verifiable source. EkoGraf (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ground fighting is still taking place, along with air-strikes and militants are still holding some territory in the Old City according to the Americans who confirmed the Iraqis bypassed several IS strongpoints during their advances. Source [7]. The Japanese analogy isn't an appropriate one, because those guys were hiding out in the jungle and conducting hit-and-run attacks. They weren't holding territory. Here, according to US, we have positions still held by ISIL that were intentionally bypassed by the Iraqis and are only now in the process of being captured. EkoGraf (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, continue to fight over the article until someone is blocked. That will help whatever cause you people are trying to defend. F*** consensus, do things your way, guys. Fight it over. LOL Coltsfan (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Americans said Iraqi forces "bypassed holdouts", not territories or strongpoints. These terms are not the same EkoGraf. What they are saying is there are still militants present in the city. Americans themselves confirmed they were in firm control. Unless it's clear they hold territory, then the battle is ended. Clearing operations are taking place. And the neutral sources too state they control the city, nor ISIL contardicts it, in fact they seem to be accepting it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any neutral sources that state they fully control the city, nor any cited sources by the US they are in firm control. Iraqi government claims don't count. And ISIL has actually contradicted the claims of the battle being over saying they are still fighting. Again, I remind, the US stated the Iraqis BYPASSED these holdouts. So, the militants are still there, they are still holding positions and are still fighting. Another source describing the current continues fighting as heavy and that now even artillery/shelling is being used. [8] So we got heavy ground fighting, airstrikes and artillery fire. EkoGraf (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You yourself accept you misrepresented "holdouts" as "strongpoints". Holdouts are simply those who continue fighting even after they are defeated. Also the article itself contains a statement of the anti-ISIL coalition/CJTF-OIR they were in "firm control". (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN19V105) Also here's neutral sources (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/battle-for-mosul/) describing defeat of ISIL. As for artillery strikes etc, it doesn't matter. If they spot any militants then they will eliminate them. Clearing operations. That isn't a benchmark. ISIL isn't contradicting it, not oto my knowledge. I don't see any territory being mentioned in your claimed sources. Clearly, we cannot present the battle as ongoing just because of what you say. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I represented it as ongoing myself as some neutral sources say so (http://abcnews.go.com/International/front-lines-iraqi-forces-fighting-back-mosul-isis/story?id=48592733) (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/world/middleeast/mosul-civilians-isis-drone-video.html). I've only done this temporarily, will see in the future what to do. Of course, it shouldn't be represented as ongoing forever in case no sources contradict it's over in the future. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

When verifiable sources say its over then its over. One of the beligerents in the conflict is not a verifiable sources, while for two days verifiable sources stated fighting was continuing. Anyway, thank you for the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the Centcom source which originally I cited on July 10, but was erased.JoetheMoe25 (talk) [9]

What if the sources never say all militants from the battle are wiped out? Are you going to keep it open forever? Some sources even immaturely represent battles as over sometimes, what about them? For sure if sources represent it's over, then it shall be closed. But it's important to note the distinction between clashes and territory being held or not. What other sources said that fighting with holdouts was ongoing. The battle is for the city and its territory. I reverted it after I saw reliable neutral sources stating the battle for the city itself continued. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Centcom even noted that the Iraqi forces were going to undertake clearing operations. Read it for yourself.[10]JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That said some sources are saying the terrorist group is defeated: [11], [12]. Choose which version of the battle, whether ongoing or ended, you want to prioritize. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We are not going to keep it open forever. So far, only the Iraqi government declared an all-out victory, while neutral 3rd party sources confirmed the battle and heavy fighting continues in the following days. When its been confirmed that heavy fighting has ceased and all major holdouts are cleared then the battle would be over. At the very least, we could close it if after a certain amount of time passes without any reports of fighting as part of the battle (like we do with other battle articles in such cases). In any case, thank you for the verifiable sources you provided that clearly state the battle is ongoing despite Iraq's declaration of victory. Between, I'm adding another source from just yesterday, where the US confirmed 200 militants are still there and that the US conducted multiple air-strikes against up to 19 IS fighting positions. [13] EkoGraf (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And Centcom backed the Abadi's announcement of victory. It wasn't just the Iraqi Government.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I swear some users are just doing this just to say the were the first to say the battle is over and User:LightandDark2000 has a history of trying to drag out battles as long as possible on wikipedia.--75.66.124.118 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You people should really get a dictionary. Per Oxford, holdout means "An act of resisting something or refusing to accept what is offered." 103.40.198.110 (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. IP Editor 75.66.124.118, your comment proves that you understand absolutely nothing about what is actually going on there, or for that matter of fact, what actually constitutes a "battle." LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a very strong difference between battling for territory and combat during clear and hold operations. The territory has been captured. Clear and hold operations are what is going on.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Even the Centcom source which I cited on July 10 declared the the battle victorious for the Iraqi government. Centcom is highly reliable resource which noted that Iraqi forces were starting clearing operations.[14]JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

First, Centcom source is outdated compared to sources from a later date. Second, Centcom is one of the beligerents in the conflict so not considered totally reliable. Third, verifiable/reliable sources clearly state battle is still ongoing. Fourth, since when are ABC News, New York Times etc not reliable sources? Fifth, no sources describing current combat as clear and hold operations making such wording unsourced Original Research. EkoGraf (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)'

EkoGraf, you have been repeatedly misrepresenting the sources and cherrypicking. Some neutral 3rd party sources also confirmed ISIS was defeated, some of them only say clashes are with HOLDOUTS which you keep on thinking as some sort of "territory". Holdout doesn't mean territory. Also while you claim "US confirmed 200 militants are still there", it actually said there "maybe 200 militants". Fighting positions simply means where they are situated at and maybe even set up a defensive position, they can easily go to one place and set up a position. Every militant won't be captured, killed or run away. Militants remain even after battle. You haven't provided a single source that says any territory remains under ISIL control. You are making your own assumptions and have needlessly dragged it out. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32, I am not misrepresenting, cherrypicking or dragging anything out. I would also remind you of WP:ASSUMINGGOODFAITH. Now... Multiple 3rd party/neutral verifiable/reliable sources have stated AFTER Iraq's declaration that despite their victory speech heavy clashes, airstrikes and shelling continued. And several sources, that you yourself provided, stated outright the battle itself is continuing. In any case, I was about to contact you regarding the compromise attempt I just made [15] when you pinged me. With a note I set two end-dates. One the formal claimed one by Iraq/Coalition. And the other where the last reported fighting took place. I wanted to ask, as a further attempt at compromise, if you think the 2nd date should be changed from 17 July (when a soldier was reported killed as part of clearing operations) to 14 July (when the last time continues heavy airstrikes and shelling were reported)? I am leaning towards 14 July. EkoGraf (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to July 14, since it was the date until which the heavy continues fighting took place. Between July 15 and 17, except the one incident of the soldier death, there was nothing. EkoGraf (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I have at least 2 local sources (and 2-3 international ones) indicating that clashes continued well into July 17, and probably into July 18. The airstrike logs from CJTF-OIR are a great way to monitor the intensity/presence of clashes in Mosul, and so far, they indicate that heavy fighting has persisted into July 17. Thus, I changed the end date to today. I will continually check the airstrike logs and other new sources for updates throughout the rest of this week. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You people still don't get what holdouts are. 103.40.199.162 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No sources calling the IS militants still fighting holdouts. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You have multiple times made wrong claims about what the sources said EkoGraf. There is no good or bad faith assumption in that. Real bad faith assumption is something like you complaining about me even after I cancelled my reverts long before your complaint. The only real reason I provided the sources for showing the battle "Ongoing" earlier was to stop the drama as I didn't want a full-blown edit-war over the article. However none of them stated if any territory remained under ISIL hands. That is good faith and compromise. I have also provided sources that contradicted them and stated the group was defeated. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not made any wrong claims. Everything I edited was according to cited sources. I would also remind that I withdrew my 1RR report after I was made aware of your cancellation. At the time when I made the 1RR report I wasn't aware of your cancellation. Most of those reporting on ISIL's defeat in Mosul are referring back to Iraq's claim of victory. EkoGraf (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't make any "wrong claims". It was you who changed wording of holdouts to strongpoints in your summary and comment, despite the definition of them not being the same. Your complaint was made after I had already reverted it just a few minutes later. it is impossible you didn't notice it in the hours after that. Either you didn't care to look or else. Either way I got impacted unfairly for something I already withdrew. And no they aren't all referring back to Iraq's claim which anyway is the major source of information [16], National Interest only refers to Abadi's declaration in first para [17]. But again you have failed to disprove that you ever provided a source that ISIL held territory. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that Iraqi military has been itself used by many neutral 3rd party sources to report the advances many times. In case of absence of sufficient coverage, we can use one side like Iraqi military or government. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

All that is Going On is Clear and Hold

The Battle of Mosul is logistically over. Centcom clearly stated on July 10 that Iraqi forces retook Mosul and that clearing operations were set to begin.[18] Please do not use combat engagement during the clearing operation which Centcom said would happen to make an inaccurate claim that a battle is still ongoing.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

First, Centcom source is outdated compared to sources from a later date. Second, Centcom is one of the beligerents in the conflict so not considered totally reliable. Third, verifiable/reliable sources clearly state battle is still ongoing. Fourth, since when are ABC News, New York Times, etc not reliable sources? Fifth, no neutral/verifiable/reliable sources describing current combat as clear and hold operations and in fact state the battle itself is ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Made attempt at compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that Iraqi forces have said that they would attack ISIL elsewhere in Iraq, once the Battle of Mosul has ended. So, when we see this redeployment in scale, it will be over. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's probably true. The Iraqis also said that they would redeploy to Tal Afar in about 1-2 weeks, so the Mosul battle will probably be concluded by then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not redeploying doesn't essentially mean the battle is ongoing. They can stay stationed in Mosul even if the battle is over. But in any case, basically agree with the rest what LightandDark2000 said up above. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think the meaning of victory is all militants captured, killed or defeated, you need to rethink the definition. That is not what it meas. Militants will remain and attack as well as fight for months and even form sleeper cells just like they have in other cities. EkoGraf's "compromise" is pure OR. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No sources these are sleeper cells and I again remind we have sources confirming the battle itself is still ongoing. Everything I edited is according to verifiable sources (even ones you provided). So no, its not OR. EkoGraf (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Centcom is not outdated. They even noted that clear and hold operations were going to take place. Believe it or not, these operations can be quite violent. Centcom is also the main US military force in the Middle East, whether through direct combat or combat support for allies, so yes it is quite reliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Centcom is outdated, their claim was from July 10th. Later (after July 10th) more verifiable/reliable third-party/neutral sources stated the battle itself is still ongoing. Centcom is one of the beligerents in the conflict so they are by definition not considered totally reliable. If we started to present everything Centcom says as fact then we would have to do the same with all ISIL claims as well. Example - I remind Centcom has made claims that the Coalition has only caused several hundred civilian deaths due to their air-strikes, while international humanitarian organizations have stated the numbers are in reality in the thousands. EkoGraf (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Do also note that Iraqi military and US-led coalition forces have been the main source of information in the battle. Without them there won't be much information about advances. Neutral sources/journalists sometimes are not allowed on frontlines by Iraqi military (http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/5391/) and ISIL is known to kill those reporting events in areas under its control (https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-25/journalism-mosul-right-now-punishable-death). Anyone who wants to say it is claimed by one side or is equitable to propaganda should remember it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of who does what to journalists, all sides engage in propaganda in any conflict. Same goes for this one, whether they are Centcom, Iraqi military or ISIL. International media outlets/journalists or international aid organizations are basically the only verifiable sources there are. EkoGraf (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The point was that Iraqi forces have been major source of information in the absemce of constant media coverage of their advances. Wikipedia allows using ome side as sources if the neutrak sources cannot effectively cover them. Some of their reports even came from the information provided by Iraqi military. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You assuming I didn't care is again assuming bad faith. I got other real-life obligations and cann't be on Wikipedia every single minute watching every page. That someone holds or doesn't hold territory isn't a singular basis what makes up a battle and claiming it so is your personal opinion. The National Interest, when talking about ISIL's defeat, was referring to ether Abadi or Sadr (another beligerent). The Independent was referring to the views of a Kurdish official (also beligerent). When 3rd party sources report on claimed advances by the Iraqi military they attribute it to the Iraqi military, and so do we. And when we are citing the military itself we again attribute the claim to them. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't assume. I just said you didn't care to look (or should I say didn't notice) or else. Possibilities. You say you have other obligations. But you had time to complaint about me and drudge up my edits while not noticing that I already reverted. Also for your claims National Interest is only referring to Abadi in first para. Another is just a talk with a camp official that residents are relieved ISIL has been cleared. Sadr is only represented only as in his worries about defeat of ISIL being a new phase. But still at most he is only a verbal leader of a Peace Companies and a politician, not a real belligerent. It is you who claimed they only referred back to Iraq's claim. I presented sources that didn't. Of course we can show other sources as well. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You wanted a source [19] that ISIL continued to hold territory after the victory speech? EkoGraf (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please check your "source's" date and the "declaration". It is not the 10 July victory speech but 9 July meeting of Abadi and congratulation which wasn't formal announcement. This is the link of the "declaration" in your source (http://news.sky.com/story/iraqs-pm-declares-victory-over-islamic-state-in-mosul-10942599). MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New proposal on the end date

I am making a new compromise proposal regarding the end date of the battle that I hope will be satisfactory to both LightandDark2000 and StuRat on the one side, as well as MonsterHunter32 and JoetheMoe25 on the other. We present two dates for two phases of the battle (this has been done in other battle articles as well multiple times). First date would be until July 10th and it will say in brackets main phase of the battle. Second date July 11-18, 2017 would say in brackets (clearing operations). Result would remain Major Iraqi government victory and not ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No not at all. We never include clearing operations in a battle infobox. The battle is about the city, killing or arresting or driving away all militants doesn't matter. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Then if its about the battle I again remind we have sources saying the battle is still ongoing. And what you or I think makes up a battle doesn't really matter. Only what verifiable/neutral sources say. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

And I again remind you we have sources that say they were defeated. And the journalists aren't even allowed on frontlines sometimes. Iraqi military has been the main source of information. What you or I think doesn't matter. But the basic definition of battle and territory does. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, the sources saying they are defeated are generally referring to what the beligerents are saying. The National Interest (that you cited), when talking about ISIL's defeat, was referring to ether Abadi or Sadr (another beligerent). The Independent (that you cited) was referring to the views of a Kurdish official (also beligerent). When we look at what neutral journalists themselves are saying, who are on the ground in Mosul, they are talking about renewed fighting, air-strikes, shelling and the battle continuing. That someone holds or doesn't hold territory isn't a singular basis what makes up a battle and claiming it so is your personal opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 BUT, if in your opinion a battle is only about territory, then I provide you with this verifiable source [20] that says outright ISIL militants continued the Mosul battle AFTER the victory declaration from their small patch of territory in the Old City. And so far I haven't seen sources saying that patch of territory has been captured. EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Again you have misrepresented EkoGraf. The source is simply stating a "small patch" not a "small patch of territory". And this source is the same day as the formal declaration (10 July). The "declaration" they refer to is July 9 meeting and congratulation by Abadi (http://news.sky.com/story/iraqs-pm-declares-victory-over-islamic-state-in-mosul-10942599). MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 not a "small patch of territory"????? Quote, very first sentence bellow the title of the article - The jihadists are still fighting from their small patch of territory while using their families as human shields. But in any case, I again ask that you read what a battle is. A battle is not singulary based on fight for territory. If you are simply going to continue making edits based on your personal opinion what makes up a battle and not open to some sort of compromise, then I have to agree with LightandDark2000, XavierGreen and StuRat that, based on what on-the-ground journalists are saying, the battle is ongoing, despite what the Iraqi PM or Centcom are claiming. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf what the actual point was your source is the same day as of the formal declaration and is talking about the 9 July congratulations by Abadi. The actual quote is this A few dozen jihadists battled with Iraqi forces on Monday as they remain surrounded in a small patch of Mosul's Old City. That's it. But territory or no territory matters little. It is clear from the article itself that the "declaration" it refers to is the 9 July arrival and congratulations by Abadi. It's clear the report is eadlier from the official declaration. The article itself mentions that Iraqi government hadn't officialy declared victory yet. And you didn't contradict my second point. You have again misrepresented the sources. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 The quote I'm talking about is The jihadists are still fighting from their small patch of TERRITORY while using their families as human shields. If you are not able to see or find the word click ctrl+F and input territory. But territory or territory matters little. If territory matters little then why are you consistently requesting sources that the battle is ongoing based on if ISIL is still holding territory? Between, again, I am not misrepresenting anything, the article may be referring to the PM's first victory speech (which actually speaks about his reliability) but it was published hours after his second as well (check timestamps). I would also like to ask that you stop with the bad faith comments. EkoGraf (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you not properly examining the sources? You present a source claiming it was stating thay clashes were ongoing even after Abadi's declaration. However the report from Sky News itself makes it clear that the "formal/official declaration" hadn't been made yet. However, the Iraqi government stopped short of officially declaring Mosul, which once had a population of two million, fully retaken from IS. Even going by timestamps it is clear, that this report is not the latest and is made at a very late time when an official declaration had been made by then. Abadi hadn't made a formal announcement earlier. But the battle was almost over anyway which is why he congratulated on 9 July. There's nothing about his reliability in it. But yes I am questioning your claims now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Listen, I don't care really anymore. I am not going to waste my energy on this pointless discussion if you are not going to show any flexibility on reaching a middle ground or stop making bad faith comments towards me. I did my bit attempting to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of both sides. I am only going to reword a bit the note for the date and focus on the casualties. As for the date itself whether its July 10th or July 18th, the note I inputed is there for the readers. Battle it out yourself with the others and let's see if they will be this much open for discussion as I have been or if they will be going this much into semantics. Good luck! EkoGraf (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What you are doing can be taken as violation of rules. Please read the sanctions, it is against misrepresenting sources. There's no bad faith in it. Even if it was a simple mistake, we can't allow this to happen again and again. Besides it's not me making up semantics, we are following procedures of previous battles. Mere reports of clashes cannot be used as continuation of battle by itself when it doesn't say so, some contradicting sources saying it's still ongoing amounts to imposing one version. Before making or changing notes, you aren't waiting for a community consensus to fully evolve. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, take it up with the other three now, don't care what the main date is anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally throughout the history of warfare battles last as long as coherant units are still engaging each other in sustained combat it is usually still considered to be ongoing. In instances where the general command has capitulated, and organized resistance has ended, so has the battle (like stalingrad). In the situation at hand, we have a belligerent force that refuses to surrender and thus the battle will end with the debellation of the engaged force and its ultimate destruction rather than a ceasefire or unconditional surrender (like the Battle of Tarawa). When sustained combat by organized units has ended so has the battle. At the end of the day, we must follow what the sources say, and if there are reliable sources stating that the battle is still ongoing this page should reflect that.XavierGreen (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No source contradicts these are "holdouts". It is clear that this isn't a general command or a real force. Even ISIL "indirectly" admits the loss, stating the Iraqi forces took huge losses for capturing Old City. (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-admits-defeat-mosul-releases-infographic-claiming-huge-casualties-iraqi-army/) It hasn't contradicted the claim of defeat officialy. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, our own analysis of the facts is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not there are reliable sources which state that the battle is ongoing. There clearly are reliable sources which state that the battle is either still ongoing, or had lasted for several days longer than the July 10th date currently there.XavierGreen (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources themselves talk about holdouts, no one contradicts it, no source as of yet has been given for anything that they still are battling for territory or have a command structure even, this is based on your own comment. Simple as that. Using a few sources saying "battle is ongoing/not over" is imposing one thing over another. The real analysing was in the beginning when the battle was presented as ongoing just because sources said there militants still attacked and were targeted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just going to comment that battles aren't just about territories. EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Never said all battles are about just territories. That will be OR. But this battle was about recapturing the city. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Air-strikes, shelling and heavy clashes reported in the Old City, with pockets of IS confirmed to be still there, means Old City not fully recaptured (at least as of 19 July). EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Again - Air-strikes, shelling and heavy clashes, that's not necessarily continuation of a battle. The battle is for the city. What has been stated by some are pockets of ISIL resistance. It did seem like territory initially, but based on what I've found on online idioms, it seems more about people resisting. So I can't agree with it. But you can ask others over whether to present it ongoing. I haven't (nor I can) stopped you from taking a consensus. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[21] states that ISIL still holds territory and 250 families hostage in Mosul, as of yesterday. It's specific on the location, so I tend to believe it. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement in its own article is actually about them being trapped (not held hostage) and militants hiding in tunnels. There is another article about "pockets" by "fighters who sneaked in from Tigris" (doesn't say when they did) but I doubt this source and these fighters were besieged.

Iraqi News is not a well-established source and I've started to avoid using it. I'm not about to use it now. Other users like you keep using it and some other sources have referenced it but I haven't seen it being established per notability, verifiablity, reliability. There seems to be little information about it, its Wiki article is a mess. Based on its own report, it doesn't seem promising. Not about to blindly use this source. It must be established per Wiki criteria. But as I already said you can take a consensus on the battle date. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It says: “Around 250 families are still held in the narrow alleyways. An area of around 100 square meters that stretches between al-Qulai’at height reaching until the Tigris River is still held by IS". I'm guessing they meant 100x100 meters, not 100 m², as that area would be too small to contain 250 families. I have found the English to be rough at that web site, but the events they report have appeared to be accurate, in the past, based on confirmation from other sources. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's what it says. The English is somewhat unclear so I couldn't understand it. I saw it as trapped based on held as it doesn't always mean being hostage. A vague small pocket of 100 square metres is mentioned which I didn't understand earlier, corrected it. I have already mentioned another report of pockets. But I am opposed to this website. I won't be opposed if a consensus is taken though. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with StuRat (both regarding the continuation of the battle and the source). Source clearly saying militants still hold territory between al-Qulai’at height and the Tigris River. Emphasis on STILL. No reason not to use the source, hasn't shown any signs of being unreliable. EkoGraf (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute. No reason? Have you checked its reports in the past? I have been doubtful because several times in past I never found its reports anywhere. In fact, currently I tried checking the report given by StuRat for half an hour about on Anadolu Agency, where it claims its report is from. I didn't find it in the English or the Turkish version of Anadolu. Something seems fishy. This website has even used length (not length-by-length) for denoting area. This website may need to be checked of it's claimed report is not found. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, their English isn't good, but that is far from saying that they make stories up. I don't see where it lists the Anadolu Agency as it's source. A Turkish news source would seem to be an odd first source, as they don't have many people involved in the Battle of Mosul. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The end of very first para of the article says it's from Anadolu Agency, Around 250 families are still held by Islamic State militants in the Old City in the western side of Mosul, Anadolu Agency reported on Thursday. Didn't find it however, others can search and let us know if they find it on Anadolu. But as the situation stands right now, we cannot trust the source. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that they have another article stating that those ISIL militants then launched suicide attacks in Mosul: [22]. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many articles there are, it cannot be trusted. Your given article is another example. It has omitted key information from the "Al Quds Al Arabi" report it claims it derives from. For example, the second paragraph of the Al Quds report clearly states these were elements attacking from catacombs and alleyways who resumed activity after Iraqi forces withdrew from these narrow places, thus they were already captured by Iraqi forces. Clearly even the source states it clear enough these aren't a continuation. Iraqi News itself states these were elements who sneaked from across Tigris. This is another example of why Iraqi News shouldn't be used. Omitting facts and non-existant reports. No sorry. You can keep arguing over a battle's end date, but this is becoming pointless. Besides I think Iraqi News should be removed from the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if some are ISIL reinforcement from across the river, this major counter-attack indicates the battle was ongoing. (However, the 250 families held hostage wouldn't have been smuggled across the river, they would have had to be held continuously in the Old City.) StuRat (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That is your own definition. Doesn't say "some", also it clearly indicates they only started attacking after Iraqi forces withdrew, these territories were thus already captured. What it is closer to is an "insurgency". Before anyone again claims it, there's no limit on former combatants becoming insurgents, that is not the definition. But counter-attack or not, it's still after the capture of territories, not durimg the battle itself. I had already warned that militants will still attack and emerge even after losing terrirory. It's not like everyone dies, or is captured or escapes. The 250 families claim is esentially sourceless, report doesn't exist it seems. But they can be held even after battle is over, what you are saying is OR. Do you have anything indicating the battle is continuing, not some hiding militant or infilitrator attackers? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the Iraqi army bypassed some areas, assuming there were no militants there, when there were many. So, those areas were never secured. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

So militants cannot hide in "secured" areas or can't infilitrate from other areas. Now this is becoming pure OR. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

How would it be "secure" when it has this number of militants occupying it ? StuRat (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources provided that the battle continues, others stated fighting continues in the Old City, and now at least one confirms IS still controls territory in the Old City. That you consider Iraq news to be unreliable is your personal POV unless you provide other verifiable sources that confirm its unreliable (WP policy). In any case, you wanted a consensus, so far we have JoetheMoe25 and you on the one side and StuRat, LightandDark2000, XavierGreen and me on the other. EkoGraf (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:StuRat Read the report again, you conveniently are discarding what it says. This "estimate" is of hiding militants, infilitrators who emerged and attacked. Besides User:EkoGraf you would do well not to misrepresent sources. The battle doesn't continue. These are uneliminated militants who hide, then pop up and attack. The original source itself clearly says so [23]. Please stop creating needless arguments over a battle's end date. I don't have to consider Iraqi News "unreliable" per my POV. When it makes potentially false and unreliable reports, it can be considered unreliable per Wiki standards. The battle is over. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You haven't provided evidence its making potentially false and unreliable reports, which Wikipedia requires you to. You are entitled to your opinion that the battle does not continue, but 3rd party sources disagree [24][25]. EkoGraf (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have already provided proof. It's you who is not wanting to accept it. You can check Anadolu Agency yourself. I cannot link to something that doesn't exist of course. And check the Al Quds source link I provided, to ascertain how it omitted facts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides those two sources you mentioned were only provided by me just to stop the drama which you were creating. But all they say is fighting is ongoing for the city, civilians are trapped. Also here's 3rd party sources stating it has been recaptured, [26], [27], [28]. In fact, it's already been widely reported for long ISIL will start indulging in asymmetric and insurgent warfare after defeat. So why waste time? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No sources describing the fighting between July 10th and 20th as part of an insurgency. All three of those sources you cited are from yesterday or today (22nd & 23rd July). Last time fighting was reported was three days ago (20 July), which makes them correct that the battle is over. EkoGraf (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Your non-reliable claimed source of "continued fighting" are from other sources. are something that doesn't seem to exist. Another is actually from a source about hiding militants and infilitrators attacking. I have said my piece, please conduct a RfC if you still dispute the end date. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Your non-reliable claimed source of "continued fighting" are from other sources. are something that doesn't seem to exist. Sorry but I don't really understand what you were trying to say there. If you were trying to say that non-reliable sources were claiming continued fighting or that reliable sources do not exist, then it would be the first time that I hear someone saying ABC News, New York Times, Reuters, Fox News, The Washington Post, Reuters, AP and BBC News are not reliable. All of those media outlets reported continued fighting in Mosul after July 10th. In any case, you asked for a consensus and a majority consensus based on the sources does exist, but now you do not accept that and want an RfC. So, conduct one. EkoGraf (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll do it. EkoGraf (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi News is non-reliable. As for other sources some shelling or clashes doesn't mean battle ongoing. Nor can we impose a few sources that say battle is ongoing. Also please wait for the RfC to finish. You changed the end date yourself even though no one else seems to have supported "20 July". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Its unreliable only according to you, you need to provide verifiable sources stating its unreliable. Four out of six editors are in agreement 10 July should not be the end date, while three of us (StuRat, Light and me) are in agreement the end date should be the last reported instance of heavy fighting, which is currently 20 July. Light even changed it to July 20th [29] but was reverted (again). So you are incorrect in your assertion no one else seems to have supported "20 July". Also, I made the change several hours before the RfC. You made the change after the RfC started. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The longest non-list article on the English Wikipedia

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		For honourably beating back countless split proposals (and one merge proposal), for relentlessly resisting suggestions to summarise the content, and for snatching the highly prestigious title of Longest non-list article on the English Wikipedia, please accept this Glorious Outlaw Halo Award. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC) (about the award)

Some day, maybe in the distant future, this will be a single article about the recent full Iraqi army offensive and subsequent victory in Mosul that took almost a year, and perhaps another single article about the recovery work done in Mosul since the victory. It may now still be too soon after the victory to be able to easily accomplish these things, but at least these things can still be hoped for. Warrenfrank (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Shortening article by dividing into separate articles for particular advances

Hello, as we all see this article is very long. A major contributor to this is the addition of day-after-day events. Some of these took outside Mosul. While it's true even the events far outside Mosul were part of the battle for the city (to create buffer zones, cut off supply routes etc), they weren't part of the battle inside the city.

Therefore I think it's better to divide specific deliberate long-term advances in regions outside Mosul, for example the operations to east of Mosul in Eastern Nineveh as well as the earlier advances of PMU and Iraqi advance around Tal Afar and to West Nineveh (before April) during the battle. A summary of these advances should be kept in this article instead. Insignificant advances and the ones in immediate vicinity of Mosul can be kept.

I also have an idea to separate it into battle for east and western part since they were nearly a month apart. They will remain part of this article through similar summaries but have their own separate ones for the very detailed battle in their areas. But this suggestion can be discussed later. My main objective is the advances outside Mosul proper. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @EkoGraf:, @XavierGreen:, @Editor abcdef:, @Horst59:, @MPS1992:, @Icewhiz:, @StuRat:, @LightandDark2000: I request you all to give opinion. Anyone else reading this, I also request them to give opinion. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be best to wait a bit, however my two cents - is really to summarize the timeline - I wouldn't cut out events outside of Mosul (some of them were quite material for the campaign - cutting off the city is of more significance than routine (and very bloody) house to house fighting and folding of the pocket).I would cut out the day to day description - try and keep it on the month or week level - unless something "big" happened in a very particular day. If you want the blow by blow day to day on an 8 month campaign - cut it out to a separate timeline article. A weekly / bi-weekly / monthly summary of events and casualty count should be the appropriate scale for 8 months - particularly when it's a slogging slow moving affair.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I too think the first step is to summarize the timeline. It makes for cumbersome reading and detracts much from the article. By the time I've read half-way through the timeline, I do not remember what I first read. I believe a good summary would increase a reader's comprehension. I understand some readers may desire details. Perhaps an external link (if one exists) could be included that would provide those minute details. Thanks to all who have worked on this.Horst59 (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd separate the East Mosul and West Mosul campaigns at the very least, and roll up the daily activities for each month into a collapse box called "Daily details", with a brief summary outside the box. One thing we need in the summary is "At the end of this month, X of Y districts/neighborhoods had been reclaimed". StuRat (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on above opinion, I think it will be better if only important happenings in the Niveneh outside Mosul proper as well as inside the city is included in a summary of the whole battle. The other details like x number of people killed on this day, x number of villages on this day, capture of non-notable and non-strategic areas should be in a separate timeline section. My suggestion is only a total number of casualties or villages captured by the end of a specific period for eg a week or a month, as well as only capture of notable or strategic areas should be included in the summary. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Both or you, User:StuRat and User:MonsterHunter32, have very good ideas, much better than the my suggestion. Perhaps one of you could be WP:BOLD or offer an example for comment.Horst59 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well for some easy examples, let's say Tal Afar was completely cut off from Mosul or the PMU/PMF cut off routes between Raqqa and Mosul. Iraqi forces captured Qaraqosh and Bashiqa. I'm just saying based on what I remember. These are advances that are important. But something like this much number of villages was captured, x number of militants was killed in this area on this day won't be included in a summary unless really noted by multiple reliable and reputed international sources. This goes for militant leaders as well, unless their death was notable, they shouldn't be included. But of course if a Iraqi commander or anyone else gives statistics of militants killed upto a period, then that can be included in the summary. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

New Casualty Figures for Mosul Battle

Hi, my name is Joel Wing. I run the blog Musings On Iraq. I was mentioned in the "Casualties and losses" sidebox. I've updated my casualty numbers, which you might be interested in to update the figures on this page. This are ONLY dead and wounded inside Mosul, not for the entire Mosul campaign which would include all of Ninewa province. Here's a link to the article where the figures were originally published.

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2017/07/post-mosul-liberation-day-8-jul-18-2017.html

Reported Battle Of Mosul Casualties (Only for the city) 14,582 Killed 14 Hashd 1,462 Iraqi Security Forces (Golden Div, police, army) 13,106 Civilians

20,609 Wounded 1 Coalition Soldier 16 Hashd 4,669 Iraqi Security Forces (Golden Div, police, army) 15,923 Civilians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motown67 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not really notable and you're a blog and not notable by much. Please give us the original source, if it's realiable and notable, we will add it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am the source for the casualty figures. I do daily security statistics for Iraq based upon over 40 media sources, mostly Iraqi. My civilian casualty figure was recently mentioned by Patrick Cockburn in "Endtimes In Mosul" in the London Review of Books.

If you'd like my bona fidas as an Iraq analyst I can give you a list of books I'm mentioned in, interviews in newspapers, citations, etc. Here's a Los Angeles Times article about my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motown67 (talk • contribs)

• Motown67, thank you for posting here and for the good work you do. I hope you understand we can't easily accept your blog/numbers as easily as we accept the LA Times which wrote you up, and so I wonder what we can do here. Maybe the best thing to do is to post at WP:RSN (a noticeboard) to make the case there; one of the things that would need to be discussed is how your stats could be incorporated into an article--by which I mean with what kind of rider or explanation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, I'm already mentioned on the Wiki page. I'm just trying to let you know that I am the original source for the figure and I have revised them if you'd like to use them. As mentioned above my civilian death number was just mentioned in the London Review of Books if you'd like to source that since newspapers mentioning me are reliable but I myself don't have the standing.

Late July to August

This User:Malayedit keeps on adding attacks by and killings of surviving militants by security forces. These reports have been always of low-level and small-scale clashes and attacks related to a few militants. And there is also the needless discovery of workshopd etc which aren't really clashes as well as the arrest of surviving militants. There has been no significant clash since late (20-30) July's end. These additions by this editor also are almost sourced only from Iraqi News. I recently shifted them ti a "Post-victory clashes" because there is little doubt of an effective victory in Mosul. I also had to delete some non-clashes stuff like deaths due to planted bombs as well as clashes in other regions not directly stated to be related to Mosul.

However even Iraqi News has plainly stated it was recaptured: Iraqi forces recaptured Mosul, Islamic State’s former capital, early July after more than eight months of U.S.-backed offensives. (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/army-division-ordered-move-mosul-tal-afar-preparing-invasion/)

I don't have a problem with these additions themselves, but they are needlessly making the article very lengthy and some of them aren't even really much notable. I think they should be removed or shortened. And especially I see no point in organising them in date format if they are instead summarized thus helping in shortening this already very lengthy article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless the attacks/killings of terrorist individuals following the end of the battle (on July 21) are highly notable, they need to be condensed. Post-victory clashes often aren't all that significant to begin with, and this article is already long enough, without the Post-victory clashes section adding further unnecessary bloating to the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)