Talk:Battle of Musa Qala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBattle of Musa Qala is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted

initial comments[edit]

also what's up with the map its just a a map outlining Afghan provinces, not where the battle was or anything relevant24.78.210.56 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can someone fix the damn infobox, its really messed up and i dont edit much so i dont know how to do it, thanks!

Raabbasi (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISAF Commander[edit]

Ok, we have the Afghan National Army commander. But who's the ISAF commander? If any ISAF forces are participating, they are most certainly not under the command of an Afghan. If we don't know specifics, just put "Canadian Military Leadership" or whatever nation's forces are participating in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.73.188 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are five regional commands in Afghanistan, the one for the south is currently under the command of Major General J Page (UK) See:- ISAF Regional Commands. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a lower ranked commander responsible for ISAF forces taking part in this assault? Who was the ISAF field commander in this attack? If we know, it should be put down under leaders, if we don't know we should just put "Unknown ISAF Field Commander" or something down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.73.188 (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figures[edit]

Where are we getting the Taliban fighting strength from? Marskell (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right here...http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2224731,00.html. "In what military commanders described as a defining battle for the stability of Helmand province, around 4,500 Nato soldiers and Afghan National Army troops launched a series of attacks against a 2,000-strong Taliban force entrenched in the town of Musa Qala." --SCJE (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're fine. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taliban sources quote 2,500 fighters on their end but the most reliable western sources say 2,000 taliban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raabbasi (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

There is confusion over the number of military casualties. With changes between British, NATO, and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). Lets not confuse things, the military groups are split into three main groups, either Taliban, Afghan Army or ISAF The ISAF group covers all the Military units that are not Afghan. The ISAF is under the control of NATO (See:- [1]) For the latest breakdown of countries participating see this ISAF pdf file:- NATO ISAF Placements. Currently the ISAF only lists one soldier killed by a mine with another injured in the same explosion. Another story indicates A soldier killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, with two others injured. This may be a prior report relating to the same incident and as yet it is unclear if they are. See:- NATO/ISAF press release. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation:- The second report of another British soldier killed and two injured in an explosion, was prior to the battle on the 4th November and refers to Territorial Army soldier Trooper Jack Sadler of the Honourable Artillery Company. BBC News Online 5 December Richard Harvey (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that would be 4 December (or 5 December, according to the Scotsman)—just two or three days before the battle, in the area. I think it silly not to include it as a casualty here. Marskell (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info box[edit]

In the info box in the upper right hand corner, the "Outcome" section of the battle is listed as "Coalition victory" yet insofar as it is labeled an ongoing event the battle is not yet finished. I assume it is merely an accidental prematurity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.13.44 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reported that the Afghans had taken the town with the assistance of NATO forces.

Also, only one British soldier has died, the second soldier was from another NATO country, not Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.163.120 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the battle summaries placed at the top right of the page are called "info boxes"? I've always wondered about it but had no idea how to ask so I apologize if this isn't the proper place to ask. 67.149.243.229 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Dealers?[edit]

The growing of poppy was banned under Taliban rule and reemerged after their fall and it is grown by non taliban.Darth Anzeruthi (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement needs to be cited (WP:CITE) to be accepted for the article. Parsival74 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it also needs to be put in context. The Taliban have subsequently emerged as major allies of the drug gangs. It is a large % of their current income. The Taliban ban should be seen for what it was, an OPEC like "opium shock" intended to improve the long term profitability of their own narcotics business. And yes, this opinion needs to be backed up with factual information too before inclusion in an article. TMLutas (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I personally find the bolded dates ugly. If we returned to ordinary prose, would it hurt in any way? Marskell (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree, though at the present stage more details will start to unfold, now the actual combat has died down a little. So perhaps it will be better to have each day's event kept separate, to prevent to much rewriting of text in to allow the prose to flow as individual events are fitted in. I have just re-formated the section to use subheaders. Hopefully that is better on the eye, and will also prove more use when suitable images become available. Is that okay with you? Richard Harvey (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Battle[edit]

I think that an OrBat would greatly enhance this article.

Hal06 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locator dot[edit]

The locator dot for Musa Qala on the main image seems to be missing. Currently, there is just a blank map of the provinces of Afghanistan. The Celestial City (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article needs serious copyediting. I made a start, but there are lots of grammar, structure and citation issues throughout. This should have been caught during an FA review. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, all references need to be rechecked for accuracy. I found two that were either synthesising, or saying things that simply were not in citations. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hvae run out of time to edit this -- can this be withdrawn as an FA? Its just not there. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should stop editing and go, but I keep finding problems. There is conflicting information about the Afghan forces leading the "final push", and later it says that british forces were leading the push to the bazaar -- which is it? 86.26.60.18 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The attack into the town was by 3 Kandak (ANA) mentored by C company 2nd Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment OMLT (Operational mentoring Liason Team), under the command of Major Adams, supported by 2 Kandak (ANA) and B Company 2nd Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment under the command of Major Little. Each OMLT / Kandak unit consisted of 240 ANA fighting toops, 36 British and 12 US special forces soldiers. 3 Kandak was broken down into six platoons of ANA, with three British soldiers attached to each one and two US special forces in each of the first three assaulting platoons. The remaining British and US forces were in ground support vehicles IE: US HMWWV's and British WMIKS. The actual first soldier in was 2Lt John Dennis (C company, 2 Yorks), commanding OMLT Amber One, with an ANA Kandak platoon. Task Force Fury (US airborne), under the command of Lt Col Brain Mennes air assaulted, from Chinooks, into the surrounding villages with US Task Force 10 on high ground above the area destroying heavy machine gun positions. At least that is what it says in one of the the battle reports I am reading on page 51 of the Yorkshire Regiment Journal of Spring 2008. There is an extensive amount of first hand detail in there that was not reported by the international media. I suppose you could get a copy of it from the regiment's headquarters in York. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a fiasco. This article should be removed from the front page. It is obviously NOT UP TO SNUFF. --156.34.68.184 (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there was a good deal of gratuitous tagging and damage to the article, so I've reverted quite a ways back. My apologies if I missed any good edits, but there was no other way to restore the article. The editor who did the damage appears to be of the notion that every sentence must be cited, and added other unnecessary tags. Starting over: please read WP:OWN#Featured articles and discuss significant edits on talk before defacing an article on the mainpage. Obviously, that doesn't include minor cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a few more minutes, I'll also review the featured version versus what's up now; if I find there was other damage before mainpage day, I may need to revert further back, so please hold off on any cleanup until I have a few minutes to review vs. the featured version. Marskell did not write bad articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checked, satisfied that I reverted to the best version I could, will next see what productive edits I can recover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, done for now, that's the best I can do. Before IP does such extensive and unnecessary tagging of an article on the mainpage, please discuss changes and issues on talk. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the last version Marskell edited to the version on the page now (which was the version just before the IP started editing) shows the featured version mostly intact still, with some citation formatting changes and a few minor additions, so there does not appear to have been an issue of deterioration here since Marskell last edited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I come back, and for the hard work I do, I get it undone? Im not "owning" the article, I am pointing out problems and fixing them! Goodness! Were any of the edits wrong? It seems that had this not been an FA, my efforts would have been appreciated, not derided. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IF you find problems, please discuss them on talk and others can weigh in, but many of your tags appeared gratuitous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

This was longer, but firefox ate my edit :(.

Problems:

  • According to the original article, Taliban forces both withdrew and dug in on the tenth. Which is it?
    • Article text: By 10 December, news outlets reported that the Taliban insurgents had withdrawn north from the area and that Afghan Army and ISAF forces were in control of the town.
    • After three days of intense fighting, the Taliban retreated into the mountains on 10 December.
    • Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7135850.stm
      • I can't locate the other phrase that concern you; please specify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article suggests that taliban was allowing the drug trade in the city to tax it. This is not supported by the citation. The citation says, in general the taliban have been known to tax drugs, and that there were large quantities of drugs in the town.
    • I can't locate the text of concern: please specify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this instance it is suggested that stonings and amputations occured. This is not supported by citations, which suggest that tribunals were set up, but make no claims (other than the hangings) of what occured.
    • Article text: Special tribunals were set up, pronouncing sentences of stoning, amputation, or death by hanging against those who were considered enemies, or who contravened a strict interpretation of the Sharia.
    • Source: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=72979
    • Source text: The Taliban have set up a special tribunal in the territory they control at which judges sentence whomever they deem to be culprits, or against the Taliban, to death, amputation or stoning, a source who cannot be identified for security reasons told IRIN.
  • An unidentified yorkshirmen is being attributed as an officer, when the citedarticle does not state his rank.
  • Taliban spokesmen suggested the retreat was designed to avoid continued airstrikes and civilian casualties within the town. -- NOt supported by any citation, have no clue who said this, or who this was reported by -- which spokesmen were these?
  • The original background section started at the days preceding the battle then went backwards in time to describe the weekse behind, jumped forwards to describe the immediate prior, then continued with the article.
  • Description of the battle does not properly create a prosaic "flow" Individual events, such as a particular person being shot down, are mixed with the movements of troops. This makes it a hard read, as you have to keep tabs on one idea, with little understanding of the surrounding terrain.
  • Some hill is mentioned whihch is not mentioned elsewhere, or provided on any maps. It is unreasonable to assume that someone reading an article on this would be able to identify the significance of any given location in the area without reference to a geography section or a map with all points of interest identified.
  • The article has a list at the end which is a list of people killed or otherwise reported as captured or killed, even if it is incorrectly reported. This could be converted into a sentence or two as there is repated information (eg maybe captured).
  • One section is labelled "wider fighting" which is being used as a dump ground for random events in the region -- only events that are directly related to this battle should be present, i.e. if there was some strategic association between the two (forces regrouping, reduction of firepower/strength at other locations, supporting actions, etc.)
  • the town had taken on iconic proportions, according to British officials -- this is not supported by any citation. There is no indication of who said this, when or who this was reported by. This is an unsourced statement.

That is not all, but that is all i am willing to waste time on, again. If you look through the edit history, rather than just block hit your rollback button, you will see the problems. If its an FA, perhaps you can take time to actually look at these problems. 86.26.60.18 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the state I found the article in after concern was lodged that the article needed to be removed from TFA. Most of the tagging was gratuitous (I've not located an instance that wasn't). I was up til sunrise trying to investigate what had happened here-- whether it was a faulty FAC pass or article deterioration since it passed-- I found evidence of neither,[2] so reverted the tagging. Is anyone else looking at this list? I may not get to it today after being up all night. IP, three MilHist coordinators supported the FAC; they didn't see a problem with the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FInally, and forgive me for doing so, I will take a broadside at your actions. You referenced WP:OWN, but above you have written "Marskell did not write bad articles". This seems to be a bit odd, and implicating that it is Marksell's article, rather than a WP article, and thus I am not allowed to edit it. You have substituted the actions of someone you are familiar with against that of the article proper.86.26.60.18 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Sany Georgia's revert - having looked at he diff I was not in doubt that the most recent pre-revert version correctly identified problematic passages that required citations, and provided citations several more places. The only problematic content were the notes, but as those are not seen by readers they can simply be removed at first opportunity. An article is not immune to imporvement just because it is on the mainpage.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the editor's comments that are not helpful to have in the article. Problems should be adressed here on the talkpage. I have also removed a couple of citation needed and who tags that were superfluous, because the statement was covered in the reference for the next phrase or because it was unreasonale to ask for greater precision of identity.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And others have removed more. It doesn't appear that any valid tagging has been identified, and we seem to be basically now in the same place as with my revert, with the tags individually removed,[3] so as long as we don't have a defaced article with gratuitous tags on the mainpage, we seem to be on the road. FAs are not immune to improvement, but no article benefits from gratuitous tagging when the info is in the next cited source. (The IP might not realize that not every sentence requires a source-- the info is often found in the next source.) The IP also appears to misunderstand "Rollback", which is used only for vandalism, and was not used here. Thanks to everyone who helped out. IP, it appears you may not be reading the section of WP:OWN#Featured artcles that I linked; it does not accuse anyone of ownership. Please re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Musa Qala. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Musa Qala. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Musa Qala. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Musa Qala. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Musa_Qala&oldid=1195320097"