User talk:Somalia456
Somalia456, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Somalia456! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) |
Battle of Ramadi[edit]
Ok, here we go, step by step:
1. Combining the two figures per the two cited sources (350 killed in air-strikes and 700 in clashes) would be per Wikipedia's policy of WP: CALC. Plus, it was agreed upon among Wikipedia editors more than a year ago (I was personally uncomfortable but consensus was reached). However, I am willing to make an attempt at compromise by separating the two figures (although again you should read WP: CALC), and present it as 350 killed (in air-strikes, per U.S.) and 700 killed (in ground combat, per Anbar Tribal Force).
2. 2,000 killed (per alleged ISIL document) is cited and was agreed upon among Wikipedia editors so please do not remove that again. The twitter post was made by and is linked to an official media outlet, and not a random individual. However, I am willing to compromise and replaced it with the original source (Iraq Press Agency).
3. Regarding your figure of 500+ killed per the US, the cited source makes no mention of 500 killed anywhere (at least I couldn't find it) so please stop reinserting this.
4. Regarding hundreds killed and several hundred killed, it is out-dated information and is from when the battle was still ongoing and there is more up-to-date info. Here, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear. When there is newer information it always replaces older info. So please stop reinserting it. Also, those are too vague terms and we work with clear figures when it comes to the infobox. It would maybe be more appropriate for the main body of the infobox. Plus its redundant since we already have the 350+ estimate (although just in air-strikes) per the US already in the infobox.
5. That the text in the article uses the word collaboration does not mean anything because Wikipedia's policy strictly prohibits to use itself as a source. Also, the wording was non-neutral and made by another editor (which I will also rectify). The wording itself from the cited source was that 190 people were detained on suspicion of being linked to IS, so in fact they were not even proven to definetely belong to IS. Something like this is more appropriate for the main body of the article, where it already is.
6. The strength figure. 1,800 was placed by someone else and is indeed not in the sources so that's fine, it can be removed. Regarding the 700 figure, its from a period mid-battle, one month after it started and hundreds of fighters had already been killed so its an unrealistic overall figure for the battle. So it has no place in the infobox. I can agree to the figure of 600 as a lower estimate per the one source, but the upper must be 2,000 since that's per two (not one) other sources (Al Jazeera and Fort-Russ). You claimed one is unreliable (Fort-Russ), but haven't provided evidence its unreliable. Per Wikipedia policy you need to prove it isn't reliable. However, I am willing to compromise and replaced it with the original source (Al-Rai Media).
7. Finally, the displaced. No objection to leaving the 500,000 figure. Don't know who put in the other figure. EkoGraf (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- PS And please stop reinserting the duplicate sentence in the lead. Anyway, hope all this clears it up. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
First Battle of the Shaer gas field[edit]
Although its highly redundant and not within the established template of editing that we have been following for years, I made an attempt at compromise in the infobox. Hope its satisfactory. EkoGraf (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)