Talk:Battle of Musa Qala

message: 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)
thread_title: initial comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  ISAF Commander 

message: Where are we getting the Taliban fighting strength from? Marskell (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, we're fine. Marskell (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Figures 

message: 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:- ) 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Casualties

message: 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)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: 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)
replies: text: That statement needs to be cited (WP:CITE) to be accepted for the article. Parsival74 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Drug Dealers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I think that an OrBat would greatly enhance this article.
Hal06 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Battle

message: 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)
thread_title:  Locator dot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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, 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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, 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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, 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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, 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)
thread_title:  Problems

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521004259/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=35145§ionid=351020403 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=35145§ionid=351020403
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103145927/http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=bf397e50-fc39-4056-86d4-5d1572146d12&k=7199 to http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=bf397e50-fc39-4056-86d4-5d1572146d12&k=7199
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215210135/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071209/musa_qala_071209/20071209?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071209/musa_qala_071209/20071209?hub=TopStories
*Added  tag to http://avantgo.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3155916.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910224454/http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2007/12/09/rebel-commanders-seized-taliban-controlled-town to http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2007/12/09/rebel-commanders-seized-taliban-controlled-town
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211202642/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/timeIsNowRightForRetakingMusaQalehBrowne.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/timeIsNowRightForRetakingMusaQalehBrowne.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211203351/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BritishTroopsPushNorthIntoMusaQaleh.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BritishTroopsPushNorthIntoMusaQaleh.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213035816/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/AfghanFlagFliesOverMusaQalehOnceAgain.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/AfghanFlagFliesOverMusaQalehOnceAgain.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212141020/http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data%2Fsubcontinent%2F2007%2FDecember%2Fsubcontinent_December285.xml§ion=subcontinent&col= to http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data%2Fsubcontinent%2F2007%2FDecember%2Fsubcontinent_December285.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208054834/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1902652007 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1902652007
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225164124/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3589152 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3589152
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211192606/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/AfghanTroopsCalledForwardToCompleteMusaQalehClearance.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/AfghanTroopsCalledForwardToCompleteMusaQalehClearance.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213232705/http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-12-13T111640Z_01_ISL19573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-VIOLENCE-COL.XML&archived=False to http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-12-13T111640Z_01_ISL19573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-VIOLENCE-COL.XML&archived=False
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080109014939/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/GurkhaEngineersBeginMusaQalehRebuildingProcess.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/GurkhaEngineersBeginMusaQalehRebuildingProcess.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified