Talk:Planned Battle of Mosul (2015)

Isn't this title POV?
I'm sure ISIS islamists wouldn't call it "liberation"... --186.18.119.46 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The government is trying to take it back from rebels who will never be the recognized govt. No more POV then Liberation of Paris Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ISIL is an illegitimate organization and a terrorist group, therefore Wikipedia will NOT endorse or factor in any of their views in creation/naming of the articles here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 186.18.119.46, I would like to commend you for making this observation about the title of the page (in reference to the heading you have given). Off course it is POV. However it does not matter what Islamic State thinks nor does it matter what any government thinks, as we are here to document the sum of human knowledge. "liberation" is an incredibly POV word laden with emotion, it stinks of POV. Mbcap (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Legacypac: I don't think ISIS thinks that it is illegitimate, so that statement is POV also. The article should be called Re-taking of Mosul or something like that. Liberation of Paris is historically set in stone, but not this one. I am a historian and a journalist, and I can assure that "Liberation" is as POV as you can make up a title. Regards. --186.18.119.46 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Liberation is no more POV than Occupation. It is a term used in the press for this operation. Mbcap consistently argues for pro-ISIL terminology so we can take their opinion for what it's worth. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, occupation has also a physical literal meaning, it means to be occupying a space. Liberation has only a POV meaning. As for newspapers, they have POVs, of course. I don't think ISIL's paper would call it "liberation". --186.18.119.46 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, the use of 'occupation' or 'liberation' to denote a military action implies a state of affairs with little military combat. The Liberation of Paris was not the Battle of Paris, because the German forces surrendered to the Allies without fighting to the end despite Hitler's orders. On the other hand, there is certainly plenty of fighting around Mosul. To use an analogy, the WW2 article "Belgrade Offensive" is not titled "The Liberation of Belgrade."


 * Furthermore, "Liberation of Mosul" heavily implies an end result of the city fully recaptured by coalition/Kurdish forces, a result that has not yet actually happened. Although I think it's quite likely that the battle will indeed result in an ISIS defeat, it's rather unencyclopaedic at the least to title articles such that they predict future events which have not yet occurred. As such, I'd like to advocate a title change. 140.180.244.97 (talk) 22:11, 20 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)
 * So, you admit it´s POV, the non-terrorist POV... It´s my POV too, I´m just saying it´s POV. :o) --181.47.180.243 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many other WP articles are calle "Liberation of" state/city/country etc. It is a fine title. Legacypac (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)!
 * This title is massively POV, 186.18.119.46, Mbcap, 140.180.244.97 and 181.47.180.243 are right. It implies that ISIL are "the bad guys" and those who oppose them "the good guys"; the opinions of Wikipedians –including my own– are irrelevant, we have to be neutral. The fact that many other articles are called "Liberation of" has to do with the fact that those names have been historiographically accepted; "Liberation of Mosul" when referring to the expulsion of ISIL from it in 2015 (that hasn't even happened yet!) has not. If other WP article titles have not been historiographically accepted, this is a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 140.180.244.97 is also correct that 'it's rather unencyclopaedic at the least to title articles such that they predict future events which have not yet occurred'. Suppose Kurdish forces manage take control of most or all of the city and start to impose a campaign to make it Kurdish and annex it to Iraqi Kurdistan, that is known to actively seek independence, then the outcome of this battle could easily be seen as a hostile occupation by Arab inhabitants of Mosul, for example. The same could be true for Kurdish inhabitants if Iraqi forces try to submit the city back to the control of Baghdad. We just don't know yet, the future of Mosul is extremely uncertain. This article should be renamed to Battle of Mosul (2015) for the time being. I want to see reliable sources of which parties are quoted as saying "Liberation of Mosul" already, so it can be used as an alternative title in the intro sentence at best. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:53, 4 March 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)
 * To Western eyes that is clear, but to ISIL fighters, supporters and other groups who many not necessarily agree with everything ISIL does or stand for, the rest of Iraq and Syria is still controlled by pro-Western and/or Shia forces (Assad, Maliki/Abadi) that have retained their power ever since the decolonisation. The "Sykes-Picot border" is seen as a remnant of the Western destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate during World War I. When ISIL captured Mosul in June 2014, they probably saw that as the "liberation" from their (pro-)Western/Shia enemies. I'm of course not saying I agree with ISIL, just that I can understand their point of view as a historian, and that we should remain neutral as Wikipedians. The Fiscal Times you quoted does mention "Liberating Mosul is crucial in defeating ISIS in Iraq." but that is spoken from the US and allies' (including Kurds and Shia militias) point of view that Wikipedia cannot just imitate. Let's continue to find and cite more reliable sources, but remember to recognise who is saying what about the current battle for Mosul. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ISIL's opinion doesn't matter, neither does the opinion of those who support it. As such, the June 2014 article is titled Fall of Mosul. This operation's goal is pretty much to do the exact opposite, and since the military and symbolic significance of this battle will be so much bigger than a mere "battle", I titled it "Liberation of Mosul." You must also know that this article is viewed nearly as much as Siege of Kobanî, and plenty of residents, locals, and Iraqi and Coalition belligerents support the title (or at least the notion), so such a shift in the title is more detrimental to viewership, in terms of ease of access. Currently, tthis title has only attached a max of 17 viewers in one day, while the original title towed in an average of 800 viewers everyday. It is Wikipedia to use the common name (which the liberation title is quickly developing into), as well as the most popular or frequently searched title. More people key in the phase "Liberation of Mosul" than they do "Battle of Mosul (2015)" (see the article traffic links), and given that the "liberation" title is already gaining traction well before the actual climax or conclusion of the battle, I seriously believe that we should have stuck with the original title. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, in regards to one of your earlier comments, the Kurds have no plans to sieze control of Mosul (this is revealed in multiple sources) so they won't care if Baghdad reasserts control of it. That being said, the Kurds have never controlled Mosul, only the surrounding countryside to the north and the east. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:58, 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)
 * There were so many battles in history fought at or near Mosul, so no, that title would be inappropriate. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

City location picture
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)
 * No, a battle map (one specific to the city of Mosul) should be shown. But Kurdish-Iraqi forces have yet to reach the city proper itself, and no one has generated such a map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:23, 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)
 * The answer to both of your questions, is yes. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Map and airstrikes
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)
 * Since there are daily airstrikes at Mosul, we are only going to list the most significant/elevated events. As for the map, there is no detailed map available for the city of Mosul, since Kurdish and Iraqi forces have not yet entered the city proper. So the battle map will have to wait. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:35, 18 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)
 * Because we really don't have anything better to use at the moment. Like I said before, no one has generated a battle map for Mosul city yet, which probably won't begin until August 2015. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing !

 * "If someone tagged your contributions with and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page." Citation_needed


 * It is not okay for you to place spam 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  template not enough?  Dustin  ( talk ) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the tags placed before AfD nomination, many claims need to be verified. you are questioning intent of  instead of addressing problem.Claims tagged, they all need to be verified.   G8j!qKb (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You question me too much and your own actions too little. Please address my concerns. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nomination for deletion independent of tag placement, WP:GOODFAITH LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to move the article to Anbar Offensive (2015)
Does anyone object?Ericl (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, Mosul is not in Anbar. 66.91.208.163 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your motivation for doing that? Mhhossein (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis
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)
 * A classic WP:CRYSTALBALL, latest efforts to delete here with many counter-arguments... Renominate for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16 August 2015‎ LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk • contribs) 14:34
 * I believe this should be merged with Mosul offensive (2015), and then trimmed to remove WP:CRYSTALBALL. If nothing else, this article shouldn't have a year on it's name. Banak (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you like to propose merger?GreyShark (dibra) 10:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm don't intend to, I'm not familiar with how to. Banak (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)