This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Iraq may be able to help! |
I'm sure ISIS islamists wouldn't call it "liberation"... -- 186.18.119.46 ( talk) 16:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. A good number of media (and government) sources are calling this a "liberation", so this title can be used. Liberating Mosul from ISIL is no different from liberating Paris from the Nazis. By the way, like I said before, ISIL is a terrorist organization, so their opinions don't matter. So the title stays. Also, we're not going to change the title just because you don't like it. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 07:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not really that "POV". ISIL clearly is the occupant force, whom the Iraqis, Kurds, and the Coalition are trying to expel. I plunked in just one of the sources that used this title, there are other sources out there that refer to his operation as a "liberation", so I contest the move. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 02:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It is true that the opinion of Islamic State does not matter and neither do the opinions of its supporters. In the same light the opinions of the opposing side do not matter as well. What matters is what is said in reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources do not call this, as yet to be undertaken, military engagement as liberation. If it was we could use it as an article title per WP:POVNAME. Since this is not the case we cannot use the word "liberation" in the article title. Mbcap ( talk) 17:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't Second Battle of Mosul be better? The articles on the conflicts in Tikrit were named the First Battle of Tikrit and Second Battle of Tikrit. There isn't any POV in that, and it helps differentiate between the two recent battles in the city well. 2601:E:1E80:1BE:3150:1694:D210:B688 ( talk) 03:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the city of Mosul should be shown in the picture to denote its location. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:B14B:AA4B:64E7:8A62 ( talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's gonna be hard to have a battle map if the entire area around the city is still held by Daesh. That'll have to wait for a little while. At that, are we talking like the one for Aleppo, or something different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.8.71 ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we replace the map with the "current military situation in Iraq" map that I've seen around a little bit? Helps a little more than Mosul's position geographically.
Also, the parts of the article detailing airstrikes are long since outdated. I think either all of them should be put in or we should just omit the specifics of each. It helps make the article a bit clearer.
-- Utahwriter14 ( talk) 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
-- LightandDark2000 ( talk) Thanks for clearing it up with the airstrikes. What I meant as to the map was I think we should use this map ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Iraq_war_map.png) instead of the map of Nineveh Province. The location of the province doesn't really seem to be very informative in this situation, especially given that the article is about Mosul, not all of Nineveh. Utahwriter14 ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Utahwriter14. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:1547:CFD2:5C0E:E250 ( talk) 19:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that map's up now, and it's working right. Utahwriter14 ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No, any map that is used should be a specific, detailed map of the Mosul area only. (For example, the specific maps used for the Siege of Kobanî and the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) articles.) Until such a map is generated, we have to stick with the one currently in use. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 00:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but why are we using a map of all of Nineveh when we're only talking about Mosul? It's like highlighting all of California when you only want to talk about Los Angeles. Utahwriter14 ( talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
templates all throughout the article at the same time as you nominate it for deletion. That is just an attempt to make the article look really bad so that you are more likely to get it deleted. Why is the {{
refimprove}}
template not enough?
Dustin
(talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tags placed before AfD nomination, many claims need to be verified. you are questioning intent of {{
citation needed}}
instead of addressing problem.Claims tagged, they all need to be verified.
G8j!qKb (
talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tag placement,
WP:GOODFAITH
LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (
talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Does anyone object? Ericl ( talk) 12:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I wonder for how long this invention is going to stand. Maybe we should already rename it to Planned Battle of Mosul (2025)? Maybe we should also create an article about the Planned extermination of ISIL (2035) as well? This article is a joke. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Iraq may be able to help! |
I'm sure ISIS islamists wouldn't call it "liberation"... -- 186.18.119.46 ( talk) 16:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. A good number of media (and government) sources are calling this a "liberation", so this title can be used. Liberating Mosul from ISIL is no different from liberating Paris from the Nazis. By the way, like I said before, ISIL is a terrorist organization, so their opinions don't matter. So the title stays. Also, we're not going to change the title just because you don't like it. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 07:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not really that "POV". ISIL clearly is the occupant force, whom the Iraqis, Kurds, and the Coalition are trying to expel. I plunked in just one of the sources that used this title, there are other sources out there that refer to his operation as a "liberation", so I contest the move. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 02:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It is true that the opinion of Islamic State does not matter and neither do the opinions of its supporters. In the same light the opinions of the opposing side do not matter as well. What matters is what is said in reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources do not call this, as yet to be undertaken, military engagement as liberation. If it was we could use it as an article title per WP:POVNAME. Since this is not the case we cannot use the word "liberation" in the article title. Mbcap ( talk) 17:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't Second Battle of Mosul be better? The articles on the conflicts in Tikrit were named the First Battle of Tikrit and Second Battle of Tikrit. There isn't any POV in that, and it helps differentiate between the two recent battles in the city well. 2601:E:1E80:1BE:3150:1694:D210:B688 ( talk) 03:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that the city of Mosul should be shown in the picture to denote its location. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:B14B:AA4B:64E7:8A62 ( talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's gonna be hard to have a battle map if the entire area around the city is still held by Daesh. That'll have to wait for a little while. At that, are we talking like the one for Aleppo, or something different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.8.71 ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we replace the map with the "current military situation in Iraq" map that I've seen around a little bit? Helps a little more than Mosul's position geographically.
Also, the parts of the article detailing airstrikes are long since outdated. I think either all of them should be put in or we should just omit the specifics of each. It helps make the article a bit clearer.
-- Utahwriter14 ( talk) 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
-- LightandDark2000 ( talk) Thanks for clearing it up with the airstrikes. What I meant as to the map was I think we should use this map ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Iraq_war_map.png) instead of the map of Nineveh Province. The location of the province doesn't really seem to be very informative in this situation, especially given that the article is about Mosul, not all of Nineveh. Utahwriter14 ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Utahwriter14. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:1547:CFD2:5C0E:E250 ( talk) 19:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that map's up now, and it's working right. Utahwriter14 ( talk) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No, any map that is used should be a specific, detailed map of the Mosul area only. (For example, the specific maps used for the Siege of Kobanî and the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) articles.) Until such a map is generated, we have to stick with the one currently in use. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 00:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but why are we using a map of all of Nineveh when we're only talking about Mosul? It's like highlighting all of California when you only want to talk about Los Angeles. Utahwriter14 ( talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
templates all throughout the article at the same time as you nominate it for deletion. That is just an attempt to make the article look really bad so that you are more likely to get it deleted. Why is the {{
refimprove}}
template not enough?
Dustin
(talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tags placed before AfD nomination, many claims need to be verified. you are questioning intent of {{
citation needed}}
instead of addressing problem.Claims tagged, they all need to be verified.
G8j!qKb (
talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tag placement,
WP:GOODFAITH
LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (
talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Does anyone object? Ericl ( talk) 12:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I wonder for how long this invention is going to stand. Maybe we should already rename it to Planned Battle of Mosul (2025)? Maybe we should also create an article about the Planned extermination of ISIL (2035) as well? This article is a joke. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)