Talk:Mosul Dam

message: Two separate sources claim different months in 2016 that Trevi started the repairs to the dam.  Al Arabyia states that it began in September 2016, while Voice of America claims that it was October 2016.  
Both dates are mentioned in the Wikipedia Page, so should there only be one listed, and if so, is there some consensus on which one it should stick to?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.126.55 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting Information

message: Cut from article:
:Subsequent investigation found the reports to be unfounded but found the nearly 500 dam workers to still be at work nearly a month after pay had stopped being distributed, with security being provided by militia under the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
Could someone please tell me what part of the ref said that the reports were unfounded? And also, can we rewrite this section so it doesn't look like Saddam hadn't intended to blow up the dam?
Better yet, let's have all the details (and all the controversy, if any):
#Did Saddam plan to destroy dam?
#*If so, why didn't he? (Iraqi locals + US military?)
#If Saddam had destroyed the dam, what might have happened?
#*A big, sudden flood that would kill a lot of people?
#*Nothing much
I need help with the research and writing of this section. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a little suspect to me.  The article says the dam was "wired" to blow up. Well, you would need some massive explosives to blow up a dam, not just wires. I think the issue probably should be mentioned but I don't think we can say for sure what Saddam's intentions were. Also WP is generally not supposed to be about things that might have happened but didn't. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It's really useful when editors don't remove the citation for a paragraph and then demand a citation for every sentence in that paragraph.  There was a problem in the wording as compared to the referenced source, but correction was made more difficult than needed by removing the citation for that source. - BanyanTree 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfounded reports

message: On the photograph which is used in the infobox you can see four gigantic towers of the power plant. For what are they for?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.237.174.171 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are surge tanks.--NortyNort  (Holla) 11:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four towers 

message: Citation #5 is a broken link. It is, however, still available via archive.org / the Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20030808092931/http://enr.construction.com/news/front2003/archives/030505.asp. Should the original citation be left in tact or should it be converted to a usable link?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justindemaris (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The preferred way of doing this, which I have followed, includes the archive link but retains the original too. However, in order to do this, I first had to convert the citation to use the cite web template.--greenrd (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mosul Dam. 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/20150924001422/http://www.envirozan.info/EZ_Docs/Dams/D_Iraqi%20Dam%20Assessments.pdf to http://www.envirozan.info/EZ_Docs/Dams/D_Iraqi%20Dam%20Assessments.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.auptde.org/newsite/UploadImages/News/110/322.pdf
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) 08:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)