Talk:Battle of Baghuz Fawqani

Why is there suddenly a new article for an operation that's been going on since 2017?
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)

User Jim7049
What is user Jim7049 doing to this page, this topic clearly deserves a separate page. I Know I&#39;m Not Alone (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been redirected to the already existing article. Jim7049 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the merger. It was discussed that the campaign article is getting too large, so this article would be separated. A merger has to be discussed. Applodion (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss here. Jim7049 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC, move to Deir ez-Zor campaign (September 2017–present)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
 * Yes The article is way too long and poorly cited. Jim7049 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No This article is a work in progress that should be worked on and improved instead of moved into the already large parent article. Ianp18 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No We've talked about this already. This article is a work in progress. Editors work together to improve its quality over time. No point in merging it back to its parent article as it already packed with info itself and is a hefty read. Moving it is a waste of time when you can simply improve on the article yourself. This "the battle isn't significant enough" talking point is purely an extension of your personal opinion, for which I think isn't sufficient enough of a consensus on the historicity and impact of this battle.Thelovelyconch (talk) 01:10, 14 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)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shajalah and title change
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)
 * Support per given reasons, though perhaps Battle of Baghuz Fawqani and Shajalah would be more fitting. Applodion (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdraw support per source given below. Applodion (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No SDF reportedly captured Shalijah at the end of January. This final battle started on February the 9th, so Shalijah is not included in this battle. The name Battle of Baghuz perfectly fits the article. I Know I&#39;m Not Alone (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No Shajalah is actually just an older name for the town Baghuz Fawqani. This created immense confusion in determining the exact frontlines. So no, please just keep it as 'The battle of Baghuz Fawqani'. LyriaSiders (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it over?
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)
 * Even though that the clashes and airstrikes have decreased, the battle is not quite over yet. There are still a few hundred ISIS fighters refusing to surrender. Most of them are in the camp near Baghuz, but they are also in tunnels underground Baghuz. I Know I&#39;m Not Alone (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Read some articles and as of now the battle is still ongoing Ianp18 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking
This article is overlinked. Examples: overcast weather, trucks. Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Notation of B-1B
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)
 * already done by Ianp18 Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Measurements of areas held by ISIS
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)
 * Article says "Cluster of hamlets", not "row".Thelovelyconch (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Another garbage "reactions" section developing
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)
 * I completely disagree with everything you've said and can't comprehend where you're getting these misguided conclusions from that you use to justify your disruptive editing. Seems more of a personal gripe than any good faith attempt to improve the article. Please do not use the article as a soapbox for your personal preferences and refrain from disruptive editing.
 * French officials, who're apart of the CJTF-OIR Coalition, and their soldiers have partaken in supporting this campaign. Quotes from officials on a very significant and historical event is encyclopedic material.Thelovelyconch (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reactions sections are a blight on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care what your personal gripe against "reaction sections" and so-called "quotefarms" are, but the aftermath section of this battle-related article is not even a "reactions section". You saw one quote from one leader in the aftermath section that I added then jumped to conclusions. Again, do not use articles as a soapbox to promote whatever little crusade you have going on.Thelovelyconch (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

SAS involvement?
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)

Ridicalous original research
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 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


 * "This past Sunday, SDF spokesman Kino Gabriel said more than 5,000 IS fighters had surrendered over the past month, while another 1,300 had been killed in the fighting. Hundreds more were captured as part of SDF operations, he said. But at the time, SDF officials also estimated as many as another 5,000 people might still be hiding in Baghuz. "We have been consistently wrong, as have our SDF partners, on how big this is," a senior U.S. defense official said earlier this month."

It means:


 * Over 7,000 fighters confirmed captured (5,000 in the main fighting + 2,000 more in the final days of mopping up https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east/prison-repairs-underway-hold-thousands-fighters)
 * At least 1,300 fighters estimated killed

Civilian losses (IS non-combatants): https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-obliteration-of-baghouz-how-many-people-died-in-the-last-stronghold-of-isis-3


 * The true civilian death toll in Baghouz remains unknown. Airwars’ current best estimate of between 326 and 850 civilians killed—based on available reporting of likely civilian deaths from December 1 to March 21— may be outweighed by the ultimate total in Baghouz alone. In a single event on March 19, for example, at least 160 civilians reportedly died, according to multiple sources. “I have no way to ascertain how many people died,” said one aid official who recently visited a  camp for survivors. Those who spoke to Ensor, the Telegraph correspondent “talked about seeing piled up bodies” in Baghouz. The main encampment in the town was off limits in the final days of fighting, she said, which some surmised was “because the clean-up of bodies had been going on.”

It means:


 * Unknown

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)