This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of al-Bab 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 |
A news item involving Battle of al-Bab was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2017. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Battle of al-Bab, 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.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 23, 2022 and February 23, 2023. |
What is the reasoning behind the current presentation of SDF unit groups in the infobox? And in particular, what is the justification of placing JaT, the most effective organized fighting force of the SDF in the theater, as a sub-unit of the Manbij Military Council, rather than either put it stand alone, or as sub-unit under both military councils (Al-Bab and Manbij)? And why is the participation of the Manbij Military Council sourced with a tweet about the participation of a group belonging to the Jarabulus Military Council, but the latter not mentioned at all in the infobox? -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 23:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I see an editor has recently challenged the inclusion of regular death reports by one belligerent side (Turkish military) stating it is neither encyclopedic nor notable. However per rules notability and content being encyclopedic should be decided per the situation. These reports are usually covered by multiple Turkish sources, even non-Turkish sources sometimes. I understand why some will challenge it, I don't like it being included myself. But the problem here is this battle has many times gone for many days, even weeks, without any advances. Even when there are, they aren't much significant. In addition, Turkish military is the only source that really reports about ongoings of this battle anymore. I tried to go through rules for this, it can be allowed if the source is not making obviously false or dubious reports or is known for making such unreliable reports or has made them many times.
If we are to remove the daily death reports and targeting reports, then most of the article will be gone and it the information left will be little. If anyone still objects to it inclusion which has some grounds, it will be better to go through a consensus. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Neutrality: and @ CaroleHenson: Since you two are experienced editors, can you offer your opinion on this? I've detailed the situation above. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Although personally I think an overall number in this manner (unless there is one singular source confirming it) is also unnecessary— CaroleHenson (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not against the number of killings as I already said, nor I'm against a separate timeline article. My only problem was that it will severely deplete the article. But I'm ok with removing them and creating a timeline, however I think it shouldn't be done by one or two persons. It's a major change and I think it's better to get a consensus from the community. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
As This battle has become multi belligerents (& also multi fronts) operation with involvemet of SAA , YPJ , Turkish-backed militias & ISIL .I think it must separated into multi pages or at least, should be out of turkish operation page .P.ut 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think, we have to list the vehicle losses too. -- User:Neoplan04 ( talk) 14:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC+1)
I don't think so, because it will be very hard/confusing. See for example the raqqa and mosul offensive which has not vehicle losses neither. For example, not all tanks hit by atm's means that they were lost or destroyed+TSK has no confirmation of all their losses (wheter near al bab or not). Also, you should then add the vehicle losses of all other oponents as well, which has no confirms at all Bzaatronto ( talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to make a new article for the SAA offensive under the title "Southern al-Bab offensive", or anything. -- User:Neoplan04 ( talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC+1)
The Turkish claims were dated February 16, but the sources contradicting their claims were dated February 14. I have no problem citing claims of fake news, but they still need to be updated in order to properly contradict. 2601:447:4100:1692:7DD9:22FD:4EC0:D40 ( talk) 14:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of al-Bab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of al-Bab 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 |
A news item involving Battle of al-Bab was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 February 2017. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Battle of al-Bab, 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.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 23, 2022 and February 23, 2023. |
What is the reasoning behind the current presentation of SDF unit groups in the infobox? And in particular, what is the justification of placing JaT, the most effective organized fighting force of the SDF in the theater, as a sub-unit of the Manbij Military Council, rather than either put it stand alone, or as sub-unit under both military councils (Al-Bab and Manbij)? And why is the participation of the Manbij Military Council sourced with a tweet about the participation of a group belonging to the Jarabulus Military Council, but the latter not mentioned at all in the infobox? -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 23:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I see an editor has recently challenged the inclusion of regular death reports by one belligerent side (Turkish military) stating it is neither encyclopedic nor notable. However per rules notability and content being encyclopedic should be decided per the situation. These reports are usually covered by multiple Turkish sources, even non-Turkish sources sometimes. I understand why some will challenge it, I don't like it being included myself. But the problem here is this battle has many times gone for many days, even weeks, without any advances. Even when there are, they aren't much significant. In addition, Turkish military is the only source that really reports about ongoings of this battle anymore. I tried to go through rules for this, it can be allowed if the source is not making obviously false or dubious reports or is known for making such unreliable reports or has made them many times.
If we are to remove the daily death reports and targeting reports, then most of the article will be gone and it the information left will be little. If anyone still objects to it inclusion which has some grounds, it will be better to go through a consensus. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Neutrality: and @ CaroleHenson: Since you two are experienced editors, can you offer your opinion on this? I've detailed the situation above. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Although personally I think an overall number in this manner (unless there is one singular source confirming it) is also unnecessary— CaroleHenson (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not against the number of killings as I already said, nor I'm against a separate timeline article. My only problem was that it will severely deplete the article. But I'm ok with removing them and creating a timeline, however I think it shouldn't be done by one or two persons. It's a major change and I think it's better to get a consensus from the community. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
As This battle has become multi belligerents (& also multi fronts) operation with involvemet of SAA , YPJ , Turkish-backed militias & ISIL .I think it must separated into multi pages or at least, should be out of turkish operation page .P.ut 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think, we have to list the vehicle losses too. -- User:Neoplan04 ( talk) 14:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC+1)
I don't think so, because it will be very hard/confusing. See for example the raqqa and mosul offensive which has not vehicle losses neither. For example, not all tanks hit by atm's means that they were lost or destroyed+TSK has no confirmation of all their losses (wheter near al bab or not). Also, you should then add the vehicle losses of all other oponents as well, which has no confirms at all Bzaatronto ( talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to make a new article for the SAA offensive under the title "Southern al-Bab offensive", or anything. -- User:Neoplan04 ( talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC+1)
The Turkish claims were dated February 16, but the sources contradicting their claims were dated February 14. I have no problem citing claims of fake news, but they still need to be updated in order to properly contradict. 2601:447:4100:1692:7DD9:22FD:4EC0:D40 ( talk) 14:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of al-Bab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)