This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Baghuz Fawqani article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Battle of Baghuz Fawqani was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2019. |
A news item involving Battle of Baghuz Fawqani was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 March 2019. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should be a part of Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present). This battle is too minor to be included on its own, and neither it is the last pocket of ISIL, there never will be one since they are an insurgent group and this article is created for propaganda purposes. It should be merged with the article listed above. Jim7049 ( talk) 03:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I never created this article for propaganda purposes. I made it because 1. It will be easier to find for someone wanting to read about this battle, all they have to do is google the village name and the article would show up in searches 2. It will make it easier to understand this battle, we wouldn't have to summarize nearly as much 3. It is in (my opinion and understanding) the final battle of the Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present) as the Islamic State would have lost all map-able territory in Eastern Syria. Finally, a separate article would help in shortening the already large parent article. Ianp18 ( talk) 05:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think a separate article should be made for the Battle of Hajin Ianp18 ( talk) 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
What is user Jim7049 doing to this page, this topic clearly deserves a separate page. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus against a merge of Battle of Baghuz Fawqani to Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present).
This article has way too many poor citations, unnecessarily long, and has a duplicate article called Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present). It should be merged to the section there with reduced content. Jim7049 ( talk) 23:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No Already discussed on the campaign's talk page. Applodion ( talk) 10:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Oppose As the end battle of the Syrian campaign in the war on isis, its notable enough to have its own page. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Shajalah was also cleared by the SDF. I think the title should be changed to “Fall of Baghuz and Shajalah” inorder to be more accurate. Ianp18 ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Does anyone know if fighting is still ongoing in Baghuz? If fighting is still happening but not in Baghuz should we end it or should we change the article to include more villages and towns? I think that if fighting has ended in Baghuz we should end it but also put a second date showing when fighting completely ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp18 ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Read some articles and as of now the battle is still ongoing Ianp18 ( talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
References
This article is overlinked. Examples: overcast weather, trucks. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Under 'Strength' in sidebar, currently reads B1-B, should be B-1B in USAF standard notation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.18.5 ( talk) 03:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I find measurements such as 200 square meters for "a row of hamlets" a trifle unlikely. "200 meters squared" would be more believable, though still very small.
Alternatively, are "hamlets" actually what was meant? They rarely come in rows, though houses do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylormc52 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet another "Reactions" sub section where primary sources are used to create a Quotefarm of politicians mouthing platitudes seems to be developing in this article. The only thing that could make it worse is if some flagicons were added. This unencyclopedic material should be removed. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The only references we had for this didn't really cut the mustard, so I've "fact" templated them. Ericoides ( talk) 08:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There was more than 4,000-5,000 fighters, and "4,050" captured". Esepcially stupid is the original research in the style "27 killed (9-13 February),[4] 55 killed (16 February-16 March),[5] 7 killed (2 March; against gov.),[6] 170 killed (19-23 March),[7][8] total of 259 reported killed". Just go and see the TOTAL FIGURES FOR REPORTED ESTIMATES INSTEAD OF EVER TRYING TO COMPILE THEM. For example here's a total figure of captured fighters - over 7,000: https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east/prison-repairs-underway-hold-thousands-fighters -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 10:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC) The ENTIRE table, if not the entire article (which I didn't even look at), needs to be completely rewritten after deleting all the original research and also totally outdated figures such as "216+ civilians killed by airstrikes (SOHR)" which was presented as if it was total yet it was only about a single incident (and furthermore anyway neither of the bogus "references" used for it [1] [2] contain a figure "216" at all). If you don't know the total, because it's unknown, always write "unknown". Again: DON'T try to compile reports. Read WP:OR regarding "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". There was no way for you to arrive at precisely "311 killed" (not even "at least"). And a total bodycount could not be performed even after policing the former camp, due to the widespread destruction, decayed/burned/fragmented civilian corpses mixed with military ones (and an additional problem caused by the use of child-soldiers and women-soldiers by IS), and the issue of tunnels. It's simply UNKNOWN unless an estimate was otherwise stated, from after the battle, as with the total number of captured fighters ("upwards of 7,000", including "roughly 3,000" from Iraq and "estimated 1,000" from other countries). SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 10:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Also I'm also pretty sure it's based in part on the practice of "liveblogging" style writing about ongoing events as they happen, which should be just not allowed because it's not only writing about unconfirmed things and rumors but also creating the narrative that can be then repeated by the idiots from "reliable sources" using Wikipedia for their research ("citogenesis"). SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Here are some more actual estimates instead of your silly OR (from March 19): https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east-dont-use/us-backed-force-says-its-control-syria-encampment
It means:
Civilian losses (IS non-combatants): https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-obliteration-of-baghouz-how-many-people-died-in-the-last-stronghold-of-isis-3
It means:
Unless you find a declaration or an estimate SDF total losses, they're also "unknown". Now go sort out that article and never do something like that (liveblog-editing) ever again. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 14:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC) |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Baghuz Fawqani article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Battle of Baghuz Fawqani was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2019. |
A news item involving Battle of Baghuz Fawqani was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 March 2019. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should be a part of Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present). This battle is too minor to be included on its own, and neither it is the last pocket of ISIL, there never will be one since they are an insurgent group and this article is created for propaganda purposes. It should be merged with the article listed above. Jim7049 ( talk) 03:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I never created this article for propaganda purposes. I made it because 1. It will be easier to find for someone wanting to read about this battle, all they have to do is google the village name and the article would show up in searches 2. It will make it easier to understand this battle, we wouldn't have to summarize nearly as much 3. It is in (my opinion and understanding) the final battle of the Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present) as the Islamic State would have lost all map-able territory in Eastern Syria. Finally, a separate article would help in shortening the already large parent article. Ianp18 ( talk) 05:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think a separate article should be made for the Battle of Hajin Ianp18 ( talk) 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
What is user Jim7049 doing to this page, this topic clearly deserves a separate page. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus against a merge of Battle of Baghuz Fawqani to Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present).
This article has way too many poor citations, unnecessarily long, and has a duplicate article called Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present). It should be merged to the section there with reduced content. Jim7049 ( talk) 23:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No Already discussed on the campaign's talk page. Applodion ( talk) 10:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Oppose As the end battle of the Syrian campaign in the war on isis, its notable enough to have its own page. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Shajalah was also cleared by the SDF. I think the title should be changed to “Fall of Baghuz and Shajalah” inorder to be more accurate. Ianp18 ( talk) 00:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Does anyone know if fighting is still ongoing in Baghuz? If fighting is still happening but not in Baghuz should we end it or should we change the article to include more villages and towns? I think that if fighting has ended in Baghuz we should end it but also put a second date showing when fighting completely ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp18 ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Read some articles and as of now the battle is still ongoing Ianp18 ( talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
References
This article is overlinked. Examples: overcast weather, trucks. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Under 'Strength' in sidebar, currently reads B1-B, should be B-1B in USAF standard notation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.18.5 ( talk) 03:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I find measurements such as 200 square meters for "a row of hamlets" a trifle unlikely. "200 meters squared" would be more believable, though still very small.
Alternatively, are "hamlets" actually what was meant? They rarely come in rows, though houses do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylormc52 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet another "Reactions" sub section where primary sources are used to create a Quotefarm of politicians mouthing platitudes seems to be developing in this article. The only thing that could make it worse is if some flagicons were added. This unencyclopedic material should be removed. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The only references we had for this didn't really cut the mustard, so I've "fact" templated them. Ericoides ( talk) 08:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There was more than 4,000-5,000 fighters, and "4,050" captured". Esepcially stupid is the original research in the style "27 killed (9-13 February),[4] 55 killed (16 February-16 March),[5] 7 killed (2 March; against gov.),[6] 170 killed (19-23 March),[7][8] total of 259 reported killed". Just go and see the TOTAL FIGURES FOR REPORTED ESTIMATES INSTEAD OF EVER TRYING TO COMPILE THEM. For example here's a total figure of captured fighters - over 7,000: https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east/prison-repairs-underway-hold-thousands-fighters -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 10:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC) The ENTIRE table, if not the entire article (which I didn't even look at), needs to be completely rewritten after deleting all the original research and also totally outdated figures such as "216+ civilians killed by airstrikes (SOHR)" which was presented as if it was total yet it was only about a single incident (and furthermore anyway neither of the bogus "references" used for it [1] [2] contain a figure "216" at all). If you don't know the total, because it's unknown, always write "unknown". Again: DON'T try to compile reports. Read WP:OR regarding "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". There was no way for you to arrive at precisely "311 killed" (not even "at least"). And a total bodycount could not be performed even after policing the former camp, due to the widespread destruction, decayed/burned/fragmented civilian corpses mixed with military ones (and an additional problem caused by the use of child-soldiers and women-soldiers by IS), and the issue of tunnels. It's simply UNKNOWN unless an estimate was otherwise stated, from after the battle, as with the total number of captured fighters ("upwards of 7,000", including "roughly 3,000" from Iraq and "estimated 1,000" from other countries). SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 10:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Also I'm also pretty sure it's based in part on the practice of "liveblogging" style writing about ongoing events as they happen, which should be just not allowed because it's not only writing about unconfirmed things and rumors but also creating the narrative that can be then repeated by the idiots from "reliable sources" using Wikipedia for their research ("citogenesis"). SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Here are some more actual estimates instead of your silly OR (from March 19): https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east-dont-use/us-backed-force-says-its-control-syria-encampment
It means:
Civilian losses (IS non-combatants): https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-obliteration-of-baghouz-how-many-people-died-in-the-last-stronghold-of-isis-3
It means:
Unless you find a declaration or an estimate SDF total losses, they're also "unknown". Now go sort out that article and never do something like that (liveblog-editing) ever again. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 14:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC) |