Talk:Shirqat offensive (2016)

Underestimated Casualties

Casualties given on the side of attackers (Iraq gov) seems to be unbelievably low given nature of modern urban combat - how it flavors defenders as well as scale of preparations of Daesh, it's ferocity and length of conflict. What's more there are reports appearing that seem to dispute extremely low figures given by officials: https://twitter.com/leloveluck/status/883780568701444096 http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2018/fy2018_CTEF_J-Book_Final_Embargoed.pdf I know that it's not enough to deny figures stated in article, but maybe it should be noted that they are disputed. Just my thoughts on the matter. I hope we will have more information on the matter after 'dust settles'. 89.160.143.178 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Is the Iraq News a reliable source? They could just be making things up. I am referring to the executions section where there is a link to a news article about execution by welding that sites an anonymous source. I am not saying it is true or not, but the verifiability of the charge is disputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.70.18 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Army

Turkey is not involved in this offensive. They are neither supporting nor backing the offensive. They have been shelled dozens of times by ISIL. According to sources, they were shelled again by ISIL and this time they lost 1 soldier. Turkish source says that they were shelled because of heavy clashes but other sources don't say so. There is a conflict between Turkish and Iraqi news about the even. However, their training camp were a far away from clash areas even though it is close to Mosul. The event wasn't related to this offensive directly. Not appropriate to add to this article since they are also not involved. I will try to find independent sources about the event which could confirm that the shelling was really because of clashes against ISIL and then add back if I find reliable sources. Feel free to add or undo my changes if you find a source that they are a part of this offensive or that the event was really related to offensive. Ferakp (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Turkish side

I have wrote this before, I will write it again. Turkish army has nothing to do with the Mosul offensive. They aren't joined the Mosul offensive and thus you can add them to the article. If they kill some ISIS members in Mosul, that doesn't mean that they are a part of the offensive. Peshmerga and the US killed top Mosul commander this week, still it has nothing to do with this offensive even though they killed the commander in the center of Mosul.

Here, the source mentions clearly who have joined the offensive. It doesn't mention the Turkish army. If you want to add Turkish army, please add a reliable source that they are a part of the offensive.Ferakp (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Map log : villages (+ does anyone know arabic or better map sources for the area ?)

Mosul area

I try to log the villages which switched control to anti-IS forces in order to draw a reliable, up to date map :

• 08/13: al-Jadaa, Zahilila, Ajba and Jwan villages (south) by Iraqi Army.
• 08/14: Tal Hamid, Qarqasha, Abzakh+ (South-East) and Qura Takh by Kurds + Iraqis.
• 08/14: Suteih, Qashqala and Qaryytakh.
• 08/15: reach Kanhash+ (South-East), capture nearby al-Kwir / (Gwer+) bridge.
• 08/15: Sanf, Homaira, Hasudiya, small Kahnash and big Kahnash.

Sign "+" means I found the village via OSM or Gmaps. I checked ALL these names on OSM, found 3.....

Please feel free to update this list. To indicate in which direction is the village, use "South-South-East" (relative to Mosul) description. SSW and alikes ok too. Map coming :) --Yug (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The map is in SVG and easy to edit. The main difficulty is to find where stands each village. Yug (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this work will be pretty hard. Two issues are rising up :

1. First, Most buildings-groups / villages visible on satelite's photos are *not* mapped (no name provided), neither by google map nor by openStreetMap. So, using these 2 sources, I cannot tell the names of the villages, not compare to kurdish informations back from the battle ground. Need better local maps than Google / OSM to track this offensive's progress.
2. Secondly, after looking for the villages cited above, it seems there is a good deal of things happening futher SOUTH of Mosul, with the Iraki / Kurdish armies moving North. But the current map is too small, so this southern and active area is not visible. --Yug (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Map resource : http://syriancivilwarmap.com --Yug (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous user copying and pasting content from websites

An anonymous user has repeatedly been copying and pasting content from websites despite me having said several times in edit summaries not to copy and paste content. News websites are copyrighted and so are the content of their news articles. Besides here, we must not use language like a news website. Not only that they don't even mention on what date the event happened and their edits are unnecessary long due to direct copy and pasting. Not to mention it spoils the standard of the article to a great extent. This person can't keep carrying this out and should be stopped. I'm not around when he edits, so if someone can relay it to him not to copy and paste from news sites, I will be highky greatful. Newsboy39 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

time to split article?

Now that the battle has actually begun, should the article be split? It seems like this is now the main event and everything that has happened since March could be in another article about ISIS-occupied Mosul. How about Battle of Mosul (2016)? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. What's been going on from March until now has been an "Outer Mosul offensive". Anywikiuser (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I will work on splitting it off. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. The main objective was always Mosul. The recapture of Mosul is step-by-step, they have to capture outer areas first to attack it later on. There's no need for another article. Mosul offensive is a step-by-step and long offensive. Besides your article contain highly undue content. Please delete it. 117.199.86.130 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But that said, my real concern is showing it as a separate offensive. If it is presented as part of this Mosul offensive, then I have no problem. The more detailed information should be on Battle of Mosul city while this one should only contain a summary of major events. Even now, the fighting is going on in villages and it along with the earlier fighting is for Iraqi forces to able to reach Mosul and be able to attack it. 117.199.86.130 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this article should be closed and renamed. The article covered the offensive that took place south of Mosul (to pave the way for the current operation). So its a totally different offensive/military operation then the one that started right now. Also, it should be renamed to (for example) Nineveh offensive (2016) because it took place dozens of miles away from Mosul. In any case, what we are witnessing now is a totally new offensive which warrants a new article (which we now have), but this specific article (and offensive) is done. Both offensives may be part of the same campaign (retaking of Mosul), but they are definitely two different offensives. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with most of what EkoGraf said however not with renaming it. We shouldn't be giving names ourselves and the sources have themselves been calling it Mosul offensive. Changing its name especially without sources will be WP:OR. The name "Battle for Mosul" is itself different as it does not denote a military offensive like this one and is directly for Mosul unlike this one where the ground for assault on the city itself was being laid out. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, no rename then. I thought we maybe stick to the established template from Syria where we named them per the provinces the offensives take place. But I'm ok with it being called Mosul. But in any case, the offensive that this article covered has now ended, and a new one has started. EkoGraf (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

User:Wikimandia why are you adding undue changes, making edits contradictory to what the sources say. Tweets by prime minister that too about the same thing two times, fighters dancing, how is any of that supposed to be DUE and noteworthy. We can't keep adding just about anything. In addition you keep changing the capture of Bashiqa to 15 October, but the source clearly states it was captured on Sunday (16 October). Also you keep changing the month of the offensive map in the infobox to October 2016, even though it is of an old Peshmerga offensive from August 2016. Last of all you falsely keep accusing me of vandalism which I never have done so. This kind of behavior and accusations aren't allowed. 117.199.86.130 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 October 2016

The article states that Peshmerga captured 10 villages, however the source New York Times only states that they are part of an operation to retake 10 villages: About 4,000 Kurdish pesh merga troops are involved in the operation to retake 10 villages. 10 villages should be replaced with 9 villages using this source. I haven't seen a report saying 10 villages were captured. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 October 2016

Add CAnada. Canadian special forces are currently participating the the Mosul offensive in an Advise and Assist Role. CSOR. Also a Canadian field hospital is there to help treat injured soldiers and the 21st Electronic warfare squadron assisting in intercepting communications. Add Australia, because there're special operations soldiers are also assisting Iraqi and Kurd forces around Mosul

Bobslicker987 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Allies?

The lede says "US, UK and allied air support", but I can't see any mention of other countries' air forces. Can anyone else? If not, I'll take out "allied". Alfie Gandon (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosul offensive (2016). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617202417/http://ncciraq.org/en/breaking-news/item/16829-nrt-iraqi-army-regains-control-of-three-villages-near-makhmour to http://www.ncciraq.org/en/breaking-news/item/16829-nrt-iraqi-army-regains-control-of-three-villages-near-makhmour

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mosul offensive (2016). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160409125729/http://www.kurdpress.com/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=10094 to http://www.kurdpress.com/En/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=10094
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170516043248/http://aranews.net/2016/06/12000-isis-militants-fighting-mosul/ to http://aranews.net/2016/06/12000-isis-militants-fighting-mosul/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329070935/http://aranews.net/2016/03/kurdish-peshmerga-forces-hit-isis-positions-mosul/ to http://aranews.net/2016/03/kurdish-peshmerga-forces-hit-isis-positions-mosul/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Ezidxan Flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)