This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Palmyra offensive (December 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Palmyra offensive (December 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.
|
Section needs work - not sure what it's trying to say. Shtove ( talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Has there been a long enough hiatus that we can say that ISIL has won this battle, and then any subsequent actions by the Syrian Army be given its own Wikipedia article? 86.47.233.58 ( talk) 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Both Al-Masdar News and South Front have been accused of being pro-government and pro-Russian and there's a strong bias in their reports. ISIL advances have stalled and there are continuous attacks and clashes by it. Regardless, this is not the first time they have made such a claim. Unless independent, reliable and neutral sources report the offensive has ended, the offensive must be kept open. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I see user EkoGraf shown the offensive as ended even though the reasons for keeping it open has clearly been stated. It has been more than a week since I posted on the talk page about a discussion but no one came to discuss. I'm open to suggestions, but at least talk. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 01:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
First, SOHR does not say its a counterattack (you called it that on your own), instead it clearly says the SAA start a violent attack, which the SAA confirmed to be an offensive on their part. The SOHR source also clearly says that the clashes by IS against government forces in the vicinity of the T4 airbase, is part of fighting that started when the SAA launched an attempt to recapture points that they had previously lost and even made advances. So, the fighting is not directed by IS towards the airbase, but instead the fighting is directed by the SAA towards IS-held positions in its vicinity, and IS is fighting back against the SAA. Finally, SOHR also simply called ISIL's offensive an attack (same language).
Second, ARA news also confirms (and I quote) that the SAA launched an offensive on Islamic State’s (ISIS) strongholds. That day, it was specifically focused on the Huwaysis area. While we have SOHR today confirming an SAA attempt to seize back areas near T4 has also been launched. Also, the SAA artillery attack on Huwaysis could have only come from the nearest SAA positions, which are at T4.
Third, considering IB Times, which is a reliable source however you look at it, is citing ARA News, it just gives more credibility to what ARA news reported.
Fourth, none of the sources you previously cited for the period in between January 4th (when their offensive was reported to had ended) and January 12th/13th (when the SAA's offensive was reported to had been launched) talk about ISIL attacks on the T4 air base. In fact, most talk about SAA shelling, air-strikes and firing on ISIL positions, not the other way around.
Fifth, even if you did find sources stating there was an attack by ISIL on the airbase, it would clearly need to confirm its part of their offensive. Thus far, there have been no sources to confirm that the ISIL offensive is still ongoing, and several that there is an SAA one.
Sixth, you say there is no consensus, but so far there have been at least four editors (including
LightandDark2000,
Vorman,
Mehmedsons and me) that have tried to close the offensive and that ISIL's attack on the T4 air base has been repelled, but you reverted each and every of our edits. You also said LightandDark2000 and Vorman made no comments, even though they clearly stated in their edit summaries and I quote The attacks on the Tiyas Airbase have been repelled. and Not major, but victory..
Seventh, I again urge you to create a new article for this new offensive.
EkoGraf (
talk)
03:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
About your new source, [5], it is nowhere stating that the ISIL offensive was repelled. We need a clear source here. Even a new offensive doesn't necessarily mean the old one is over. This is why it i s OR to show the offensive as ended based on sources that simply say a "new offensive" or a "offensive". MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 03:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Besides I don't know why you are offering me an article. We need a real consensus and cannot consider it so until other editors state clearly what they think should be done. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 03:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
References
EkoGraf let me remind you what you said First, SOHR does not say its a counterattack (you called it that on your own). Anyone can get what you mean here. As for any "interpretation", I don't call it as interpretation when it fits the definition. We regularly use one word for many words on Wikipedia. Al-Masdar isn't about me considering it reliable or semi-reliable. Even others can be wrong when they consider it reliable. Per Wikipedia rules, we see its reliability and not popular sentiment. Al-Masdar said THREE times the offensive has been repelled. That in my mind is not a reliable source, not to mention its dubious reports which no one else reports usually. There's a reason why I don't use it. And yes, sources do confirm there is an ongoing offensive. There is no reliable source stating that the offesnive was ended or repelled. Also as you have broken 1RR I ask you to revert yourself. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As User:EkoGraf and a couple of others here have stated, the main ISIL offensive ended late last month. ISIL's sustained offensive on the Tiyas T-4 Airbase mostly concluded by 7 January, with the Syrian Army at that time pushing ISIL back from the airbase. Despite the continued clashes, the major offensive actions have seemingly ended almost 2 weeks ago, and the results on the ground seem to indicate a major ISIL victory (albeit not a total or decisive victory), due to the massive gains made by ISIL. And the comments by the other users above pretty much sum up what I had to say about the sources and their reliability. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a different solution in mind. Mehmedsons recently added ARA News' report that an ISIL offensive was repelled on T4: Syrian Army foils major ISIS attack on T4 military airport in east Homs. The report is from 22 December, however clashes still kept ongoing after that: The regime forces shell the area around Inkhel and casualties in the regime forces’ ranks in the vicinity of T4 airbase and 62 soldiers killed by clashes around the T4 military airport. These reports are from 24 December. What is however known that ISIL has achieved no advancement since then. And ISIL has attacked multiple times without any gains. So here's my workaround: Instead of saying Syrian Army victory and offensive repelled, we say Limited ISIL gains and offensive stalls, sporadic clashes continue (PS: I have made a modification to this, see my later comment). This will be much closer to actuality. I hope you find it acceptable. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Palmyra offensive (2016–17) →
Palmyra offensive (December 2016) – I made this request because the desired page name is already used in a redirect and was the original name. If I am making request the wrong way, please let me know how I should make the request to move this page to that redirect. Per the reliable source ARA News and the compromise reached here, I have changed the date of end of the offensive to 21 December, which the ARA News states the offensive was repelled and ISIL was driven back:
Syrian Army foils major ISIS attack on T4 military airport in east Homs. Therefore it is no longer appropriate for the article's title to remain Palmyra offensive (2016–17). Please change the article's title back to Palmyra offensive (December 2016). Please also shift back Talk:Palmyra offensive (2016–17) to Talk:Palmyra offensive (December 2016). If anybody has any problem, please let me know. Thank you.
MonsterHunter32 (
talk)
18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Did the Palmyra offensive really end, or just the 1st stage of the battle (IS offensive) end, and now is the 2nd stage of the battle (SAA counter-offensive) ?
Or does it need to make another article of Palmyra counter-offensive ?
At the moment it is no longer "sproadic clash" between SAA and IS, SAA is making a large offensive. Михаил Александрович Шолохов ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Syrian Arab army is defeated in this ISIS-offensive in Palmyra and expelled 60 km west of the city. From 22 December to 8 January, had been fighting for an air base T4. ISIS's attack on the airport is denied. After that they were occasional skirmishes on both sides until 12 January. Syrian Arab Army on 12 January launched a broad offensive in the areas around the eastern province of Homs. Not only Palmira In the center of attention, but the expansion of the area around the airbase T4 and are fighting for oil and gas pipelines in the wider area of the desert. Eastern Homs offensive (January–February 2017). -- Baba Mica ( talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Palmyra offensive (December 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Palmyra offensive (December 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.
|
Section needs work - not sure what it's trying to say. Shtove ( talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Has there been a long enough hiatus that we can say that ISIL has won this battle, and then any subsequent actions by the Syrian Army be given its own Wikipedia article? 86.47.233.58 ( talk) 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Both Al-Masdar News and South Front have been accused of being pro-government and pro-Russian and there's a strong bias in their reports. ISIL advances have stalled and there are continuous attacks and clashes by it. Regardless, this is not the first time they have made such a claim. Unless independent, reliable and neutral sources report the offensive has ended, the offensive must be kept open. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I see user EkoGraf shown the offensive as ended even though the reasons for keeping it open has clearly been stated. It has been more than a week since I posted on the talk page about a discussion but no one came to discuss. I'm open to suggestions, but at least talk. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 01:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
First, SOHR does not say its a counterattack (you called it that on your own), instead it clearly says the SAA start a violent attack, which the SAA confirmed to be an offensive on their part. The SOHR source also clearly says that the clashes by IS against government forces in the vicinity of the T4 airbase, is part of fighting that started when the SAA launched an attempt to recapture points that they had previously lost and even made advances. So, the fighting is not directed by IS towards the airbase, but instead the fighting is directed by the SAA towards IS-held positions in its vicinity, and IS is fighting back against the SAA. Finally, SOHR also simply called ISIL's offensive an attack (same language).
Second, ARA news also confirms (and I quote) that the SAA launched an offensive on Islamic State’s (ISIS) strongholds. That day, it was specifically focused on the Huwaysis area. While we have SOHR today confirming an SAA attempt to seize back areas near T4 has also been launched. Also, the SAA artillery attack on Huwaysis could have only come from the nearest SAA positions, which are at T4.
Third, considering IB Times, which is a reliable source however you look at it, is citing ARA News, it just gives more credibility to what ARA news reported.
Fourth, none of the sources you previously cited for the period in between January 4th (when their offensive was reported to had ended) and January 12th/13th (when the SAA's offensive was reported to had been launched) talk about ISIL attacks on the T4 air base. In fact, most talk about SAA shelling, air-strikes and firing on ISIL positions, not the other way around.
Fifth, even if you did find sources stating there was an attack by ISIL on the airbase, it would clearly need to confirm its part of their offensive. Thus far, there have been no sources to confirm that the ISIL offensive is still ongoing, and several that there is an SAA one.
Sixth, you say there is no consensus, but so far there have been at least four editors (including
LightandDark2000,
Vorman,
Mehmedsons and me) that have tried to close the offensive and that ISIL's attack on the T4 air base has been repelled, but you reverted each and every of our edits. You also said LightandDark2000 and Vorman made no comments, even though they clearly stated in their edit summaries and I quote The attacks on the Tiyas Airbase have been repelled. and Not major, but victory..
Seventh, I again urge you to create a new article for this new offensive.
EkoGraf (
talk)
03:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
About your new source, [5], it is nowhere stating that the ISIL offensive was repelled. We need a clear source here. Even a new offensive doesn't necessarily mean the old one is over. This is why it i s OR to show the offensive as ended based on sources that simply say a "new offensive" or a "offensive". MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 03:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Besides I don't know why you are offering me an article. We need a real consensus and cannot consider it so until other editors state clearly what they think should be done. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 03:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
References
EkoGraf let me remind you what you said First, SOHR does not say its a counterattack (you called it that on your own). Anyone can get what you mean here. As for any "interpretation", I don't call it as interpretation when it fits the definition. We regularly use one word for many words on Wikipedia. Al-Masdar isn't about me considering it reliable or semi-reliable. Even others can be wrong when they consider it reliable. Per Wikipedia rules, we see its reliability and not popular sentiment. Al-Masdar said THREE times the offensive has been repelled. That in my mind is not a reliable source, not to mention its dubious reports which no one else reports usually. There's a reason why I don't use it. And yes, sources do confirm there is an ongoing offensive. There is no reliable source stating that the offesnive was ended or repelled. Also as you have broken 1RR I ask you to revert yourself. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
As User:EkoGraf and a couple of others here have stated, the main ISIL offensive ended late last month. ISIL's sustained offensive on the Tiyas T-4 Airbase mostly concluded by 7 January, with the Syrian Army at that time pushing ISIL back from the airbase. Despite the continued clashes, the major offensive actions have seemingly ended almost 2 weeks ago, and the results on the ground seem to indicate a major ISIL victory (albeit not a total or decisive victory), due to the massive gains made by ISIL. And the comments by the other users above pretty much sum up what I had to say about the sources and their reliability. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a different solution in mind. Mehmedsons recently added ARA News' report that an ISIL offensive was repelled on T4: Syrian Army foils major ISIS attack on T4 military airport in east Homs. The report is from 22 December, however clashes still kept ongoing after that: The regime forces shell the area around Inkhel and casualties in the regime forces’ ranks in the vicinity of T4 airbase and 62 soldiers killed by clashes around the T4 military airport. These reports are from 24 December. What is however known that ISIL has achieved no advancement since then. And ISIL has attacked multiple times without any gains. So here's my workaround: Instead of saying Syrian Army victory and offensive repelled, we say Limited ISIL gains and offensive stalls, sporadic clashes continue (PS: I have made a modification to this, see my later comment). This will be much closer to actuality. I hope you find it acceptable. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 22:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Palmyra offensive (2016–17) →
Palmyra offensive (December 2016) – I made this request because the desired page name is already used in a redirect and was the original name. If I am making request the wrong way, please let me know how I should make the request to move this page to that redirect. Per the reliable source ARA News and the compromise reached here, I have changed the date of end of the offensive to 21 December, which the ARA News states the offensive was repelled and ISIL was driven back:
Syrian Army foils major ISIS attack on T4 military airport in east Homs. Therefore it is no longer appropriate for the article's title to remain Palmyra offensive (2016–17). Please change the article's title back to Palmyra offensive (December 2016). Please also shift back Talk:Palmyra offensive (2016–17) to Talk:Palmyra offensive (December 2016). If anybody has any problem, please let me know. Thank you.
MonsterHunter32 (
talk)
18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Did the Palmyra offensive really end, or just the 1st stage of the battle (IS offensive) end, and now is the 2nd stage of the battle (SAA counter-offensive) ?
Or does it need to make another article of Palmyra counter-offensive ?
At the moment it is no longer "sproadic clash" between SAA and IS, SAA is making a large offensive. Михаил Александрович Шолохов ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Syrian Arab army is defeated in this ISIS-offensive in Palmyra and expelled 60 km west of the city. From 22 December to 8 January, had been fighting for an air base T4. ISIS's attack on the airport is denied. After that they were occasional skirmishes on both sides until 12 January. Syrian Arab Army on 12 January launched a broad offensive in the areas around the eastern province of Homs. Not only Palmira In the center of attention, but the expansion of the area around the airbase T4 and are fighting for oil and gas pipelines in the wider area of the desert. Eastern Homs offensive (January–February 2017). -- Baba Mica ( talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)