Talk:Battle of Ramadi (2004)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Ramadi (2004) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] This article is unbalanced

This article while well written has two major flaws, first it presents information only from the coalition’s POV. Second and more Importantly it has no information links whatsoever and as such it is totally unverifiable. Feel free to remove the tag once these issues have been addressed Freepsbane 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a information link for you is this verifiable for you enough.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-12-ramadi_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.229.112 (talk • contribs)

OK listen people you say this article is unbalanced, in that case if that bothers you that much then you find the points of view (POV) from the insurgents, see if there are embeded journalists with the insurgents that took there stories. And if you need a reference for the casualties and for the date of the battle it's all in the one reference that there is on this minor but SIGNIFICANT battle. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-12-ramadi_x.htm

And for the result. It was not indecesive. In principal,actualy at any given time I would agree with you. BUT almost all of the insurgents from the attacking force were killed, and as for the Americans they sustained almost 30 percent casualties but won. It was a pyric victory for them. So I think that as a felow wikipedian put it a Nominal U.S. Victory is the correct term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.229.112 (talk • contribs)

Thirty percent casualties does not mean a pyric victory unless the americans were unable to reinforce themselves, Or the cost wasn't worth the price. Well we all have opinions on the subject, the question of whether the battle was worthwhile is best left to historians. In World War two and one thirty percent casualties was accepted as light casualties all the time and its clear we won those wars. regardless though I will leave it as a pyric victory because its debatable, what's not debatable as far as i'm concerned is stating that several marines experienced "mental problems". That there was at least one suicide, that the insurgents took control of the city two months later, all without citation. Casualties can be confirmed and therefore if they are way off can be corrected, but saying things about the mental state of the marines who fought there, saying somebody killed themselves (which shouldn't be that hard to confirm if true) and stating what the tactical situation was, all without citation is wrong. A person can take uncited facts about casualties and the way the battle was fought without citation (though clearly they should have them). Because if true it can be confirmed and changed if not true. But the mental state of the men?, possible suicides?, the later tactical situation in Ramadi?. We have to take the authors word for it and can't easily confirm if its nonsense. I am going to remove the sentences I mentioned and change indecisive to pyric victory (even if the unsubstantiated claims about the insurgents taking back the city two months later are true it hardly matters. the article is solely abot the battle of Ramadi itself, not what happened two months later, you might as well tell us what's happening now and say it was part of the battle. That is, they won the day, that was the battle, pyric victory or not). Colin 8 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrrhic Victory?

By what military standards does being outnumbered 2 to 1 and inflicting fifteen times as many casualties on the enemy constitute a Pyrrhic victory? A Pyrrhic victory is that which leaves one party in control of the field but is so devastating to their fighting force that subsequent battles leave them at a disadvantage or in defeat later in the war. This is not the case in Iraq now, nor was it directly after the battle. I would support recategorizing this battle as an indecisive US victory, which is more accurate. 70.17.205.109 01:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this Vladiator 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Robbskey 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Campaignbox Iraq War battles}}

Hi Top Gun. I disagree with your position that the template isn't relevant to this article. It's arguably more relevant to the article than the {{Campaignbox Iraq War}} template that's there right now. This is, afterall, one of the battles in the template. Also, there's no real harm in having the battles template. We're not a paper encyclopedia after all. Anyone else have thoughts or comments on the matter? Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy. Having the template on the same page as the battle is a lot more useful than the vague "battles and operations" link which is there now. Lawrencema (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't understood me. Over a year ago it was decided between all of the editors of the Iraq war that the template that lists just the battles was just getting to big. So it was decided that another template, Campaignbox Iraq War, was to be made, it would have a link to an article which lists the military operations of the war and to an article that lists the bombings. In the article with the list of operations we put the template which lists the battles and in the article with the list of bombings with put the template which lists all of the mayor bombings.(Top Gun) 13 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk)