Talk:Hit, Iraq

merger

Normally I would go ahead and at least do a rough merger as part of the close, but the other article is overly detailed and almost completely unsourced so it seems like discussion of what to merge and what to leave behind is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I can probably take care of it later today. I actually think it's a lot simpler than you say, because nothing on the prior article is sourced. Most of that info has been in the article for years, and is both NPOV and challengable. Thus, technically, none of it should be merged. However, I'm willing to extract a single paragraph summary out of the other article, bring it here with an "unreferenced section" tag, and then see if anything gets fixed here in a few weeks/months. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian...I'd move little if any from that article to this one. Semper Fi! -FieldMarine (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation for merger text

Here's about all I'm comfortable bringing over uncited:

"After the Iraq War, Hīt was occupied by a variety of U.S. Marine and Army groups. Of particular military importance was the Navea Training Center, a former post of the pre-invasion Iraqi Army, and used by the U.S. to train the New Iraqi Army. Handover of the city to Iraqi forces was completed in February 2008."

I would put this in its own section, and mark it as an unreferenced section. I would consider removing the second sentence eventually, because I'm probably going to nominate Navea Training Center for deletion unless I can find some sources for it.

Anyone think anything else should get merged in? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. FieldMarine (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)