![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 2019 Syrian-Turkish clashes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The TFSA is figthining as well. Why isn't it in the infobox? -- 109.92.111.54 ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Can i suggest that this article might be in danger of getting too detailed. The Second rebel counter-offensive section, for example, currently has 600 words to cover less than three days. Relevant policy includes WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TMI, WP:BREAKINGl, WP:DUST, and WP:USINGPRIMARY. Using Twitter sources and breaking news items to give a blow by blow account of each day's action is not encyclopedic. I'm not calling for anything to be deleted, just that we shouldn't rush to cover everything in detail, especially if the sources for the detail are not so reliable. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally i think this offensive is over, there have been no ground operations/advances for almost two weeks now. Both sides are most likely preparing and reinforcing their positions for the next battle, but for now i think this one is over. I'd like to hear from other users how you think about this whether you agree or disagree. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Support @ I Know I'm Not Alone, EkoGraf, and Takinginterest01: In my opinion, the offensive is over and the situation is back to the period before April 30, 2019, so I think we should put an end perhaps in early June. In case of renewed offensive, we add that it is a second phase as we did in Deir ez-Zor campaign 2017-2019 or Battle of Ras al-Ayn.-- Sakiv ( talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Takinginterest01 ( talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Intermittent shelling and shooting is not a military operation itself. Even Al-Masdar News does not acknowledge that the military operation is continuous.-- Sakiv ( talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Both sides have agreed upon a truce in northwestern Syria as of August 1st. Since then the air activity has also significantly dropped as per source: [6] If this continues in the coming days i propose the offensive to have ended on the 1st of August. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 11:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Renewed ceasefire started on August 31st, let's see how long this one lasts. [15] I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 11:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Sakiv: How can one state that the Hezbollah withdrawal has nothing to do with the offensive, when just a few days ago, Hezbollah units were reported to have been stationed at the front lines? While Nasrallah was talking about a more general withdrawal from Syria, rather than a withdrawal from Northwestern Syria in particular, Northwestern Syria is still a part of Syria and news of a Hezbollah withdrawal are very relevant to an article, which features the group as one of the combatants, within the context of a civil war in a country that that said group is claiming to be withdrawing from. Hezbollah's withdrawal annoucement would have considerable implications on the balance of power, and as they are listed as a combatant of the offensive, that includes the offensive in particular. If nothing else, the reader should be informed of Hezbollah's annoucement. Best regards, Goodposts ( talk) 14:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there evidence of Iran support? If so, what are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.197.177.5 ( talk) 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Russian MOD denied any loss of soldiers. Moscow Times is a Finnish paper, not a Russian paper.
208.72.125.2 ( talk) 15:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are talking about the Ababil 3 drones. I think these are operated by SAA, not by IRGC.
source: /info/en/?search=Equipment_of_the_Syrian_Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.2 ( talk) 14:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, as some editors have said, it is too long for people to read this article. One of the reason is that the article is divided into context, not by month. If we divide article into context, it is hard to upload simultaneous events and some of the events are not matching to titles itself. What I want to suggest is that let's divide this article by month, not by context. 웬디러비 ( talk) 02:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
How long will we continue to delay putting an end to this. We're approaching October and a military offensive has rarely been going on this long. There is an official ceasefire announced on 31 August so we should follow it. @ Takinginterest01, Goodposts, and I Know I'm Not Alone:-- Sakiv ( talk) 23:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
1. First, you said because some "could" potentially happen, we cannot enlist any more battle. By your perspective, we could say the Syrian Civil War was ended because now there are no major conflicts and parties which are engaging are participating in Peace Talk held by the UN and many other countries. But, none of the reports say it is over and it is not a good idea to push over your opinion. 2. Many of you say that "ceasefire" is end of war, but in Eastern culture, especially East Asia, which uses Chinese character, ceasefire and end of war is definitely different. 休戰 (literally meaning ceasefire) means a stop of fighting for a term which is agreed by both belligerents but not formally end the fighting. 終戰 means the end of the war or the war ends. So, in Asian culture, ceasefire does not mean end of the war. Until one of the parties says that they would finish the battle, it is an ongoing battle. 웬디러비 ( talk) 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The person who wrote this must not understand what decisive victory is. A decisive victory is that of cripples the enemy army and paves way for an ultimate conquest. The SAA did succeed in capturing some land, yet the rebels still remain, and are not dealt a massive blow. KasimMejia ( talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ I Know I'm Not Alone, EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, and Sakiv: - pinging editors that contributed recently and significantly to this page and others regarding the SCW (hopefully I didn't forget anyone). With offensive operations appearing to resume in Northwestern Syria I'd say that, if they are to keep being noteworthy and beyond small local clashes, they should be added as a seperate article, rather than being appended to this one, as the four month gap is evidence that the current advances are a follow-up to, rather than an extention of the april-august offensive. In addition, this article is already quite long, and would become overly so if these more recent clashes are added. So, I propose that we monitor the situation for the next couple of days and see if an offensive will actually take hold, or wether these are just sporadic clashes. If the former is deemed to be the case, then I propose it be detailed in a seperate article from this one. Thoughts? Best regards, Goodposts ( talk) 13:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
There are too many orginal research, for example a Twitter picture showing a text in another language, or Twitter sources. All those are unreliable and should be deleted. Beshogur ( talk) 22:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Beshogur: Hi, I partially agree with you - those twitter picture sources were not proper citations. At the same time, I belive you've also deleted a bit too much. Twitter sources can be used in certain cases, especially if they are verified. Primarily, this has to do with sources reporting about themselves. Among the SCW community, tweets from verified news organizations are also often used to report on more minute topics, which may not be covered in published articles. Those should definitley stay, as without them writing about the SCW would be extremely difficult.
As for your claims of original research, please highlight which statements you deem fall foul of this rule. I would like to kindly request that you refrain from deleting more text (only mentioning this because you mentioned in your diff that you intended to delete a lot more, while you've already deleted quite a lot) before we can form some kind of consensus about the use of twitter sources (not just with me, but with the other frequesnt editors, too). I haven't reverted your edit, and as I've said I partially agree with it. I think that twitter pictures, unverified accounts and tweets used to cite third parties should be deleted, as per WP:TWITTER and usual guidelines, but that the rest should stay. This ought to be a discussion that we hold openly and I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion. Best regards, Goodposts ( talk) 15:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 2019 Syrian-Turkish clashes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 November 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The TFSA is figthining as well. Why isn't it in the infobox? -- 109.92.111.54 ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Can i suggest that this article might be in danger of getting too detailed. The Second rebel counter-offensive section, for example, currently has 600 words to cover less than three days. Relevant policy includes WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TMI, WP:BREAKINGl, WP:DUST, and WP:USINGPRIMARY. Using Twitter sources and breaking news items to give a blow by blow account of each day's action is not encyclopedic. I'm not calling for anything to be deleted, just that we shouldn't rush to cover everything in detail, especially if the sources for the detail are not so reliable. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally i think this offensive is over, there have been no ground operations/advances for almost two weeks now. Both sides are most likely preparing and reinforcing their positions for the next battle, but for now i think this one is over. I'd like to hear from other users how you think about this whether you agree or disagree. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Support @ I Know I'm Not Alone, EkoGraf, and Takinginterest01: In my opinion, the offensive is over and the situation is back to the period before April 30, 2019, so I think we should put an end perhaps in early June. In case of renewed offensive, we add that it is a second phase as we did in Deir ez-Zor campaign 2017-2019 or Battle of Ras al-Ayn.-- Sakiv ( talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Takinginterest01 ( talk) 01:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Intermittent shelling and shooting is not a military operation itself. Even Al-Masdar News does not acknowledge that the military operation is continuous.-- Sakiv ( talk) 14:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Both sides have agreed upon a truce in northwestern Syria as of August 1st. Since then the air activity has also significantly dropped as per source: [6] If this continues in the coming days i propose the offensive to have ended on the 1st of August. I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 11:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Renewed ceasefire started on August 31st, let's see how long this one lasts. [15] I Know I'm Not Alone ( talk) 11:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Sakiv: How can one state that the Hezbollah withdrawal has nothing to do with the offensive, when just a few days ago, Hezbollah units were reported to have been stationed at the front lines? While Nasrallah was talking about a more general withdrawal from Syria, rather than a withdrawal from Northwestern Syria in particular, Northwestern Syria is still a part of Syria and news of a Hezbollah withdrawal are very relevant to an article, which features the group as one of the combatants, within the context of a civil war in a country that that said group is claiming to be withdrawing from. Hezbollah's withdrawal annoucement would have considerable implications on the balance of power, and as they are listed as a combatant of the offensive, that includes the offensive in particular. If nothing else, the reader should be informed of Hezbollah's annoucement. Best regards, Goodposts ( talk) 14:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there evidence of Iran support? If so, what are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.197.177.5 ( talk) 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Russian MOD denied any loss of soldiers. Moscow Times is a Finnish paper, not a Russian paper.
208.72.125.2 ( talk) 15:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are talking about the Ababil 3 drones. I think these are operated by SAA, not by IRGC.
source: /info/en/?search=Equipment_of_the_Syrian_Army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.2 ( talk) 14:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, as some editors have said, it is too long for people to read this article. One of the reason is that the article is divided into context, not by month. If we divide article into context, it is hard to upload simultaneous events and some of the events are not matching to titles itself. What I want to suggest is that let's divide this article by month, not by context. 웬디러비 ( talk) 02:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
How long will we continue to delay putting an end to this. We're approaching October and a military offensive has rarely been going on this long. There is an official ceasefire announced on 31 August so we should follow it. @ Takinginterest01, Goodposts, and I Know I'm Not Alone:-- Sakiv ( talk) 23:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
1. First, you said because some "could" potentially happen, we cannot enlist any more battle. By your perspective, we could say the Syrian Civil War was ended because now there are no major conflicts and parties which are engaging are participating in Peace Talk held by the UN and many other countries. But, none of the reports say it is over and it is not a good idea to push over your opinion. 2. Many of you say that "ceasefire" is end of war, but in Eastern culture, especially East Asia, which uses Chinese character, ceasefire and end of war is definitely different. 休戰 (literally meaning ceasefire) means a stop of fighting for a term which is agreed by both belligerents but not formally end the fighting. 終戰 means the end of the war or the war ends. So, in Asian culture, ceasefire does not mean end of the war. Until one of the parties says that they would finish the battle, it is an ongoing battle. 웬디러비 ( talk) 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The person who wrote this must not understand what decisive victory is. A decisive victory is that of cripples the enemy army and paves way for an ultimate conquest. The SAA did succeed in capturing some land, yet the rebels still remain, and are not dealt a massive blow. KasimMejia ( talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ I Know I'm Not Alone, EkoGraf, Takinginterest01, and Sakiv: - pinging editors that contributed recently and significantly to this page and others regarding the SCW (hopefully I didn't forget anyone). With offensive operations appearing to resume in Northwestern Syria I'd say that, if they are to keep being noteworthy and beyond small local clashes, they should be added as a seperate article, rather than being appended to this one, as the four month gap is evidence that the current advances are a follow-up to, rather than an extention of the april-august offensive. In addition, this article is already quite long, and would become overly so if these more recent clashes are added. So, I propose that we monitor the situation for the next couple of days and see if an offensive will actually take hold, or wether these are just sporadic clashes. If the former is deemed to be the case, then I propose it be detailed in a seperate article from this one. Thoughts? Best regards, Goodposts ( talk) 13:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
There are too many orginal research, for example a Twitter picture showing a text in another language, or Twitter sources. All those are unreliable and should be deleted. Beshogur ( talk) 22:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Beshogur: Hi, I partially agree with you - those twitter picture sources were not proper citations. At the same time, I belive you've also deleted a bit too much. Twitter sources can be used in certain cases, especially if they are verified. Primarily, this has to do with sources reporting about themselves. Among the SCW community, tweets from verified news organizations are also often used to report on more minute topics, which may not be covered in published articles. Those should definitley stay, as without them writing about the SCW would be extremely difficult.
As for your claims of original research, please highlight which statements you deem fall foul of this rule. I would like to kindly request that you refrain from deleting more text (only mentioning this because you mentioned in your diff that you intended to delete a lot more, while you've already deleted quite a lot) before we can form some kind of consensus about the use of twitter sources (not just with me, but with the other frequesnt editors, too). I haven't reverted your edit, and as I've said I partially agree with it. I think that twitter pictures, unverified accounts and tweets used to cite third parties should be deleted, as per WP:TWITTER and usual guidelines, but that the rest should stay. This ought to be a discussion that we hold openly and I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion. Best regards, Goodposts ( talk) 15:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)