Talk:Battle of Ramadi (2015–2016)

Issues
many issues with article

firstly, date of battle should start from the time they lost it (May) since they have been fighting to regain it since this time

secondly, numbers of casualties are wrong or unverified

thirdly, city has not actually fallen yet, in fact IS is still in control of the majority of the center and some suburbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Date of battle is according to sources, and sources clearly state the offensive/battle for the city was initiated at the beginning of December. EkoGraf (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fatalities
Here, it appears that an ISIL document stated that they lost 2,000+ fighters in Ramadi during the battle. Waiting for corroboration/confirmation from other sources, but if confirmed (ISIL probably lost over 2,500 fighters in the area), it would be nice adding the figure to the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * US source here indicates that 1,036 ISIL militants were killed in Coalition airstrikes during the week of the offensive on the central Ramadi district of Hoz. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Battle of Ramadi (2015–16). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160130103246/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/24-Jan-2016/over-100-killed-in-air-strikes-clashes-with-is-militants-in-iraq to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/24-Jan-2016/over-100-killed-in-air-strikes-clashes-with-is-militants-in-iraq
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160131174507/http://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/asia-pacific/TDJNDN_201512223316/iraqi-army-launches-offensive-to-retake-ramadi.html to http://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/asia-pacific/TDJNDN_201512223316/iraqi-army-launches-offensive-to-retake-ramadi.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160309231930/http://www.nationaldailypress.com/2016/01/03/3459/3-iraqi-soldiers-killed-and-17-wounded-in-isis-suicide-attack-ramadi/ to http://www.nationaldailypress.com/2016/01/03/3459/3-iraqi-soldiers-killed-and-17-wounded-in-isis-suicide-attack-ramadi/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160127014009/http://www.wral.com/militants-use-of-human-shields-in-ramadi-slows-progress/15238771/ to http://www.wral.com/militants-use-of-human-shields-in-ramadi-slows-progress/15238771/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160130103246/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/24-Jan-2016/over-100-killed-in-air-strikes-clashes-with-is-militants-in-iraq to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/24-Jan-2016/over-100-killed-in-air-strikes-clashes-with-is-militants-in-iraq
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160208081509/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/07-Feb-2016/15-iraqi-security-members-killed-in-is-bomb-attacks-in-anbar to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/foreign/07-Feb-2016/15-iraqi-security-members-killed-in-is-bomb-attacks-in-anbar
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160216211903/http://news.yahoo.com/iraqs-ramadi-retaken-rebuilding-huge-task-172924072.html to http://news.yahoo.com/iraqs-ramadi-retaken-rebuilding-huge-task-172924072.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Ramadi (2015–16) → Liberation of Ramadi – Recapture of a city (i.e. Liberation of Paris). – 99.8.13.120 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 22:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Philg88 ♦talk 07:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all recaptures are considered liberations, please demonstrate that's what they're commonly called in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Proposed new name is a recent and highly POV name, best avoided for now unless there is compelling evidence of widespread English usage. (A redirect from the proposed new name would be good however.) Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ISIS casualties and other numbers
User EkoGraf is saying that ISIS had 1800-2000 fighters during this battle, but none of the sources mention the number "1800" and only one source, some guy's blog (i.e. a non-reliable source), say 2000 fighters. The majority of reliable sources give a lower estimate, and I've carefully listed these claims along with the given source. It's misrepresentation to take a source that says one number and use it to cite a completely different number.

In addition, I've carefully listed out estimated ISIS casualties for this battle, while removing one source that was literally just a twitter post. Also, you can't just take two totally different numbers from different sources at different points in time and add them together. That's not legitimate and isn't supported by the WP:CALC policy, which is for things like converting imperial measurements to metric. Combined we can make a better wikipedia. Somalia456 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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. 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. PS And please stop reinserting the duplicate sentence in the lead. Anyway, hope all this clears it up. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's look at this line by line.
 * 1: WP:CALC is for things like calculating an age or converting measurements from one system to another. It's not appropriate to take two very different sources – with different levels of quality and reliability, and covering different time periods – and add them together. In this case, the 700 KIA source says that 700 bodies were recovered, not that 700 were killed in ground clashes. Because someone could certainly be double counted, you can't add them together. The dailybeast source says that most fighters were killed in airstrikes, so it's incorrect to attribute these deaths exclusively to ground combat.


 * 2: There is no talk-page consensus to include this figure and it's not cited to a reliable source. Wikipedia mandates that sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and there is no evidence that "Iraq Press Agency" fulfills this. This is alone is enough to reject the source.


 * 3: The dailybeast.com source says "Defense officials said most of the roughly 1,000 ISIS fighters entrenched in Ramadi were killed in airstrikes" so I'm going to re-add this.


 * 4. These terms are appropriate because there's a high degree of uncertainty over casualties. Later figures are better, but it's still appropriate to include other relevant information.


 * 5. That's fine. I agree that the world "collaborator" has strong connotations, but it is the only word that appropriately describes civilians who cooperated with the ISIS regime. In any case I was just trying to improve the previous language, which wrongly suggested that 190 ISIS fighters were captured when in fact these were civilian suspects.


 * 6. "Fort-Russ" does not do editorial review or fact-checking and it has not been cited in the mainstream media as a trustworthy source. This is because it is a blog, not a news cite. There is no evidence that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * PS: sorry about the duplicate sentence in the lead. Somalia456 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The 1,800 figure came from adding up ISIL deaths during the battle. And most of the sources gave an estimate of about 1,000. By December 2015, many local sources hinted at over 1,000 (plus, add 700 in Jan. 2016 to 400+ KIA in Dec. 2015 and you already have over 1,100), as well as "revised" US estimates, indicating that even US military source had grossly underestimated the number of ISIL fighters hiding inside the city. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's truly so I wouldn't mind the 1,800 figure then. But not sure about Somalia456. EkoGraf (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to tally up ISIS casualties, you need to actually find a source that does it. Please don't just pick a number and then add a bunch of sources that say very different things. (For example, the previous revision cited a lower estimate of 1,100 fighters attributed to four sources, but none of them mentioned that number at all.) I don't know where you're getting any of these numbers from so please provide some links. I don't disagree with this if it can be attributed to reliable sources, but I haven't found anything similar to what you're saying in my research. Somalia456 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, to LightandDark2000: please don't hijack sources. If a source says, for example, that ISIS had 700 fighters in the battle, you can't use that to cite a claim of 1,100-2000. This stuff is misleading and doesn't help people learn. Somalia456 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to learn how to do some analysis and actually read the information present in all the sources given before making such claims. The US said in January 2016 that there were still 700 militants fighting for Ramadi. Iraqi forces + US airstrikes killed more than 400 back in December 2015, in fact, a US source states that US-led airstrikes alone killed 1,036 militants in Ramadi in Dec. 2015. 1,036 + 700 = 1,736 militants at a bare minimum. (And we are also tallying ISIL forces present back in Nov. 2015, not just in the middle of Dec. 2015.) 1,100 is a compromise number. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have to do analysis and neither should you, because Wikipedia is a third level source, not a primary one. If I click on a footnote and it says a completely different number than what the article says, the article is wrong. If you want to mix and match sources, you need to actually explain your math in a footnote, not just link a half dozen different sources together. 1100 is not a compromise number, it's a high-end estimate made by mixing different sources to produce the highest possible claim. Making a personal assumption is Original Research (OR) and isn't allowed per WP policy. Somalia456 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The USA Today source is being deeply misinterpreted. The number is referring to deaths for airstrikes for all of Iraq, not Ramadi. Somalia456 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only say that I agree with LightandDark2000 regarding routine calculations such as these and that you should read WP: CALC more carefully. It clearly says - Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. You missed the part about adding numbers. WP: CALC has been used in this way for years by Wikipedia's editors. As for item number 3 (your claim 500 died) the source says most of the roughly 1,000 ISIS fighters...were killed. Nowhere does it say 500 died. If it said half instead of most I would agree to the 500 figure, but it doesn't. Making a personal assumption is considered Original Research (OR) which isn't allowed per WP policy. EkoGraf (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * most of the roughly 1,000 ISIS fighters...were killed is mathematically equivalent to 500+, which is what the article says. Somalia456 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Little over half, not most, is the mathematical equivalent to 500+. The way you made your assumption is considered original research which is strictly prohibited. As for the 2,000 deaths reported by iraqpressagency, you have not provided any evidence (which you are obligated to) that the source is not reliable. So please stop removing the sourced information. You also reinserted the 700 strength figure which I already explained to you was the strength status of ISIL mid-battle after hundreds had already been killed so its an unrealistic overall figure for the battle. And an overall figure is the only one we put in the infobox. And for the last time, please stop reintroducing the hundreds killed claim which is out-dated (again, per WP policy, newer info replaces older). EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 500+ means any number over 500, not slightly more than 500. It's perfectly valid, and certainly much more valid that mixing two totally different sources to get a minimum force number that you alone created. It's your responsibility to affirmatively prove that Iraq Press Agency is reliable, they don't seem to be reliable and certainly not for a claim like this (which can't be verified.) Somalia456 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your speculation about 500+ is considered unsourced original research. As for Iraq Press Agency, you have not provided any evidence to question its verifiability. And we are already using the expression alleged for the sake of compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)