Talk:Western al-Bab offensive (October–November 2016)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western al-Bab offensive (October–November 2016) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Western al-Bab offensive (October–November 2016), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Twitter sources

Alot of what has been written in this article relies on twitter as a source, which is against wikipedia rules. So should it be removed?

Needbrains (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And not only that but these 2 twitter sources are not neutral accounts they are pro ypg. Lol these Syria articles are a joke... Needbrains (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish casualties and sources

Turkey has not reported any Turkish loss of a soldier or any other thing like a Tank (they did report on earlier losses as mentiont on the main page of the Turkish intervention). The reason why I put that on the list is to show that Turkey denies any kind of loss of a soldier as it has not reported any. Removing it doesn't make much sense as you removed more information that comes from a side (wheter biased or not).

I removed 24 rebels killed and 20+ rebels wounded. In the source, there is no mention of 24 rebel dead, so you inserted information that is contrary to the cited source. This kind of info can be removed at any time per WP policy. That the Turks didn't report any casualties on that one specific day doesn't mean much in the overall sense since they did report casualties (wounded in the previous days). The source also does not contain any info about a denial by the Turks of the alleged soldier deaths. However, as compromise, I have added an asterisk beside the soldier death claims and a sentence in the notes section to which the asteriks links that says no soldier deaths were confirmed by the Turks. EkoGraf (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not based on reliable sources

This article is not based on reliable sources and it is claiming that the SDF is backed by SAA and Russia while there is no single reliable source to prove this. Also, sources that are used are unreliable and against other sources. Unreliable tag will be added as long as reliable source confirms that the SDF is backed by SAA. Ferakp (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

al-Masdar News, judged reliable by Wikipedia, claims this. Furthermore, several pro-opposition sources also have reported about it. Applodion (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Applodion. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add the al-Masdar source, I can't see on article. Ferakp (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first cited source for "Syrian Arab Republic" Applodion (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't support your claim at all. The source says The attack was supported by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who attacked ISIS' northern flank, causing Islamic State militants to retreat from the area entirely.. That means that the SDF supported SAA attack by clashing with ISIS, which is a far way from the fact that SAA supported SDF and backed it. Read carefully the end section, it says The US-backed SDF and Russian-backed SAA are still on relatively good terms and have avoided clashing with one another,. I am not even mentioning that SDF denies such allegations. When you have a reliable source which says the SAA backed SDF in Western Al-Bab offensive, you are free to reverse my changes.Ferakp (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Again, you appear to be mistaking the infobox. As long as a "divider line" is used, this signals that two factions, while not allied, together fought against the same enemy (as you yourself cited, that is the case here). If the government is given its own section, that suggests that they also opposed the SDF, which is wrong. Moreover, you undid the status quo, even though this discussion is not over. Applodion (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if the SDF and the SAA are both in separate columns it implies they are also in a conflict with eachother, which they are not. We have already used the separation line in one column several times in the past in various Syria war articles to indicate two groups that are not allied to eachother but are fighting the same enemy. EkoGraf (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]