WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article 2016 Dabiq offensive, 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!

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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: Middle East 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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

There are two separate versions of the recent advances. Some Twitter sources report FSA captured Duwaybiq but later lost it. However, SOHR never reported it being captured by FSA. In all its reports it said that clashes were ongoing. Instead of Duwaybiq, the third village (Ihtmiylat and Kafra being the other villages) captured by FSA was Dahariya. And the latest report only mentions Ihtmiylat and Kafra being recaptured by ISIL. I'll usually go with SOHR. The problem is I cannot find Dahariya on a map. Neither under English or Arabic. Any town or village in Aleppo Governorate does not seem to have a name at all close to it. Who should we prefer? 61.1.56.185 ( talk) 23:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I have found mention of Dahariya (الظاهرية) west of Jarabulus in a tweet by Sham Legion: https://twitter.com/ShamLegion/status/769907817390174208 61.1.56.185 ( talk) 23:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I generally stick with SOHR and just the numbers of villages reported. As for their names, I usually add the names of only notable towns. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

So should we remove the Twitter sources and Liveuamap (it is based on Twitter sources as well) and information based on it regarding the recent advances on 11-12 October? I don't think they should be used unless no other alternative source of information is available. If you want to remove them, I'm with you. 117.199.95.154 ( talk) 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Agree with you about the Twitter sources and Liveuamap. Liveuamap's sources are twitter and I think we should only use official twitter posts. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Why is Al-Masdar being added here? Of course, all sources must be presented here but only if they are completely reliable. No one except Al-Masdar has stated Sawran was captured. In addition Al-Masdar has given several premature or wrong reports for example al-Rayhan which it stated had been captured by SAA on 11 Oct. However clashes are still ongoing there. This source should be avoided. 61.0.201.245 ( talk) 04:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

And Al-Masdar did say three villages. Read the source carefully. I'm highlighting thd third village in the third para of the article which you might have not read carefully:

To make matters worse for the IS terrorists, the Islamist rebels reigned control over the village of Ghayton only to capture the adjacent city of Sawran after hours of intense clashes.

Asides from the Al-Ghilaniyah, and Arshaf villages (the Kuwaiti Farms being the farms that were captured), it also stated this Ghayton village was captured. 61.0.201.245 ( talk) 04:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Eko just as a word of caution, don't present this offensive as ended for a few days. Of course any new villages that are captured from now on should be part of another offensive. But this offensive keeps having lots of ping-pongs where one group leaves and comes back again hours or a few days later. I suggest we wait for a few days. If there is no recapture by ISIL in atleast 3 or 4 days, then we should show the offensive as ended. 117.199.84.72 ( talk) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Already intended to wait a few days before closing so to see how the situation develops. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Needless to mention as Dabiq is difficult to defend, it has a higher probability of a ping-pong. 117.199.84.72 ( talk) 21:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply