This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Northern al-Bab offensive (September 2016) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Northern al-Bab offensive (September 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:
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.
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EkoGraf has made WP:OR edits. Turkish claims and SOHR count is not always the same. In addition, Turkey hasn't given any figure of casualties in rebel ranks after 16 September. Also there is no source where SOHR said that 5 rebels died on 16 September. If SOHR did, then add a source for it. The sources are of 2 rebel death on 18 September and 1 death on 19 September. Needless to say, there is no source of Turkish claims of death toll on 18 and 19 September. EkoGraf has overlapped Turkish and SOHR figures from different days and has presented it as "Turkish and SOHR claim". This is pure original research on his side. This is distortion of sources and isn't the first time this thing has happened. Then EkoGraf claims I'm being uncivil for pointing out his faults. Newsboy39 ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
EkoGraf None of the villages that ISIL has recaptured were captured in this al-Bab offensive. Likely they were captured in earlier offensives by Syrian rebels. Here's an updated listing of villages recaptured by ISIL ( https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-rapidly-recapturing-villages-turkey-backed-militants-northern-syria/). And here is the listing of villages captured during the al-Bab offensive ( http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=50822). As you can see, they are not the same at all. I think I saw the names of some of the villages recaptured by ISIL while editing Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. The statement regarding villages recaptured by ISIL should be shifted to the Turkish military intervention article as they weren't captured by Syrian rebels in this offensive. Newsboy39 ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2016 al-Bab offensive's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Tastekin":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Newsboy39 First, I was the one who restored the recapture into the article, not someone else. Second, our personal talk pages exist so editors can talk to one another, discuss issues and find compromises. There is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting editors to talk to one another via talk pages. You can report to an administrator if someone is making harassing personal attacks against you. But, I hardly think any administrator is going to consider me trying to discuss issues with you not related to articles (me trying to point out your non-civil hostile behavior for example), or make you aware of Wikipedia's policies in regards to this, or us trying to work out our differences (which Wikipedia requires us), for which personal talk pages exist. If anything, you have made a number of hostile remarks towards me during the course of our discussions (and a few other editors have pointed this out during our Sirte discussion) which themselves could be seen as personal attacks. I have attempted, in a civil manner, to point out several Wikipedia policies to you, since you obviously started editing Wikipedia just recently and have not familiarized yourself with all the rules. But, since you consider this me making harassing attacks against you, I will simply stop talking to you all-together because I obviously can not reasonably talk to you without you thinking I'm making an attack against you. EkoGraf ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Newsboy39 I restored it in a slightly altered version, plus restored the content that you carelessly deleted (stalled part), and frankly I simply can not argue with you anymore since you obviously can not discuss an issue without being hostile all the time. As far as I remember all the needless disputes start with you reverting me. I have never been uncivil or hostile towards you, but you have made several uncivil and hostile comments towards me. Like claiming I was being bossy or threatening you for pointing out 1RR and other WP policy. Like I said, a few other editors pointed out at the Sirte discussion that such comments are not proper behavior. If you had just state plainly what is wrong with my edits we wouldn't have a problem. We would resolve the issue. But each time you make accusations towards me that I am intentionally being disruptive (contrary to WP:ASSUMEGOODFATIH). That is both uncivil and hostile however you try and look at it. Editor talk pages exist so editors can work out their differences. Your strong behavior regarding your talk page is strange, but if that's how you want it than fine. We will talk on article talk pages only in the future as you have requested. But if you do continue to make, frankly, threatening and hostile comments towards me, I myself will have to talk to someone. Regards. EkoGraf ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
How can this offinsive be an IS victory? First the offinsive toward al-Bab is still ongoing, second FSA recaptured all what was lost during IS counter-offinsive and captured more towns (look at the maps), so change the results to FSA Victory or at least "offinsive stalled, Minimal FSA gains (although I don't think it's minimal at all), remember Northern Raqqah offensive were u marked villages in Aleppo as Raqqah while the fact is YPG attack on Northern Raqqah was repelled and focus was shifted toward Manbij. 3bdulelah ( talk) 10:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
i changed it already. Also this is what the aftermath section says: In the immediate aftermath of the aborted offensive towards al-Bab, the rebels and Turkey launched a new offensive towards the ISIL-held town of Dabiq. Needbrains ( talk) 10:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Northern al-Bab offensive (September 2016) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Northern al-Bab offensive (September 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:
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.
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EkoGraf has made WP:OR edits. Turkish claims and SOHR count is not always the same. In addition, Turkey hasn't given any figure of casualties in rebel ranks after 16 September. Also there is no source where SOHR said that 5 rebels died on 16 September. If SOHR did, then add a source for it. The sources are of 2 rebel death on 18 September and 1 death on 19 September. Needless to say, there is no source of Turkish claims of death toll on 18 and 19 September. EkoGraf has overlapped Turkish and SOHR figures from different days and has presented it as "Turkish and SOHR claim". This is pure original research on his side. This is distortion of sources and isn't the first time this thing has happened. Then EkoGraf claims I'm being uncivil for pointing out his faults. Newsboy39 ( talk) 05:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
EkoGraf None of the villages that ISIL has recaptured were captured in this al-Bab offensive. Likely they were captured in earlier offensives by Syrian rebels. Here's an updated listing of villages recaptured by ISIL ( https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-rapidly-recapturing-villages-turkey-backed-militants-northern-syria/). And here is the listing of villages captured during the al-Bab offensive ( http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=50822). As you can see, they are not the same at all. I think I saw the names of some of the villages recaptured by ISIL while editing Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. The statement regarding villages recaptured by ISIL should be shifted to the Turkish military intervention article as they weren't captured by Syrian rebels in this offensive. Newsboy39 ( talk) 15:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2016 al-Bab offensive's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Tastekin":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Newsboy39 First, I was the one who restored the recapture into the article, not someone else. Second, our personal talk pages exist so editors can talk to one another, discuss issues and find compromises. There is no Wikipedia policy prohibiting editors to talk to one another via talk pages. You can report to an administrator if someone is making harassing personal attacks against you. But, I hardly think any administrator is going to consider me trying to discuss issues with you not related to articles (me trying to point out your non-civil hostile behavior for example), or make you aware of Wikipedia's policies in regards to this, or us trying to work out our differences (which Wikipedia requires us), for which personal talk pages exist. If anything, you have made a number of hostile remarks towards me during the course of our discussions (and a few other editors have pointed this out during our Sirte discussion) which themselves could be seen as personal attacks. I have attempted, in a civil manner, to point out several Wikipedia policies to you, since you obviously started editing Wikipedia just recently and have not familiarized yourself with all the rules. But, since you consider this me making harassing attacks against you, I will simply stop talking to you all-together because I obviously can not reasonably talk to you without you thinking I'm making an attack against you. EkoGraf ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Newsboy39 I restored it in a slightly altered version, plus restored the content that you carelessly deleted (stalled part), and frankly I simply can not argue with you anymore since you obviously can not discuss an issue without being hostile all the time. As far as I remember all the needless disputes start with you reverting me. I have never been uncivil or hostile towards you, but you have made several uncivil and hostile comments towards me. Like claiming I was being bossy or threatening you for pointing out 1RR and other WP policy. Like I said, a few other editors pointed out at the Sirte discussion that such comments are not proper behavior. If you had just state plainly what is wrong with my edits we wouldn't have a problem. We would resolve the issue. But each time you make accusations towards me that I am intentionally being disruptive (contrary to WP:ASSUMEGOODFATIH). That is both uncivil and hostile however you try and look at it. Editor talk pages exist so editors can work out their differences. Your strong behavior regarding your talk page is strange, but if that's how you want it than fine. We will talk on article talk pages only in the future as you have requested. But if you do continue to make, frankly, threatening and hostile comments towards me, I myself will have to talk to someone. Regards. EkoGraf ( talk) 12:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
How can this offinsive be an IS victory? First the offinsive toward al-Bab is still ongoing, second FSA recaptured all what was lost during IS counter-offinsive and captured more towns (look at the maps), so change the results to FSA Victory or at least "offinsive stalled, Minimal FSA gains (although I don't think it's minimal at all), remember Northern Raqqah offensive were u marked villages in Aleppo as Raqqah while the fact is YPG attack on Northern Raqqah was repelled and focus was shifted toward Manbij. 3bdulelah ( talk) 10:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
i changed it already. Also this is what the aftermath section says: In the immediate aftermath of the aborted offensive towards al-Bab, the rebels and Turkey launched a new offensive towards the ISIL-held town of Dabiq. Needbrains ( talk) 10:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)