Talk:Quneitra offensive (June 2017)

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Quneitra offensive (June 2017), 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!

Exceptional claims/unduly self-serving[edit]

@Applodion,

About this [1] edit, these two articles are doing some heavy narrative pushing, claiming that the Israelis are either supporting or directing the terrorists. Seems like a clear case of exceptional claims and unduly self-serving to me, which are mentioned as an exclusionary criteria in WP:RS. Eik Corell (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A claim about which rebels are aligned with which other rebels (e.g. about a "Jaish Mohammed Operations Room") is also controversial. Al-Masdar should not be used as a source on intra-rebel politics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell: Yes, the claim about Israeli involvement is controversial, but the references you removed were not used to cite anything related to the Israelis; instead the references were used to cite a counter-attack and a rebel success. Both of these are uncontroversial. In regard to the operations room, that is also uncontroversial, as it is confirmed by a pro-rebel source (which is included in the article). Applodion (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Applodion:. Masdar was discussed several times and it was agreed when it comes to uncontroversial issues, such as the ones Applodion described, Masdar is considered a reliable sources since in most cases what they report on those issues overlaps with reports from the pro-opposition SOHR. Also, like Applodion said, the references you removed were not citing anything related to the Israelis. In fact, nowhere in this article is it even stated that Israel was directing or supporting the rebels. Bobfrombrockley, Army of Muhammad operations room composition isn't only supported by a Masdar reference but a non-Masdar one as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobfrombrockley, I just added a third source confirming the existence of the Operations Room. The source also confirms the name of the offensive, for which you requested a source earlier as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Just to be clear, I was not saying that Al-Masdar is wrong about the Operations Room, simply that a claim about a rebel alignment cannot be made based on Al-Masdar alone. While they may accurately report SAA troop movements etc, based on Syrian military sources, they cannot be seen as a reliable source for intra-rebel politics or rebel announcements. Those need at least triangulation, but ideally replacement by solid sources. The article is now better due to your added citation of multiple sources, so thanks Ekograf. Re Eik Corell above, I suspect their issue is not so much with what was being backed up with that citation as with the link to a source which is headlined "Syrian Army repels another horde of Israeli-backed jihadists in Quneitra countryside", which is the sort of dubious propagandizing that makes Al-Masdar problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was indeed the extra baggage of those source; the headlines and the claims in those articles of the terrorists being supported directly by Israel in the form of airstrikes, not the claims the articles were used to support. Eik Corell (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we don't translate into the article what is said in Masdar reports for the sake of propaganda, just like we do not translate anti-Assad comments in SOHR reports, the neutral integrity of our articles is preserved. EkoGraf (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I still think it is preferable, wherever possible, to use better sources than Al-Masdar and SOHR because of the bias in their reports. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be preferable, but in cases such as here, where al-Masdar is used to describe simple troop movements, it is often hard (if not impossible) to find better sources. Applodion (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli involvement[edit]

@EkoGraf,

Israel should not be listed as supporting the rebels when the article makes clear that Israeli airstrikes were retaliation for errant shelling. Perhaps listing them as a third-party in the conflict would work? Eik Corell (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eik Corell, first regarding your comment in the edit summary. But there's nothing in the article indicating that Israel is assisting either side. Exactly. That is why there is a separation line between Israel and the rebels in the infobox. The established template for inboxes that we have been using for years is - when there are two belligerents not fighting each-other and are instead clashing against the same (third) belligerent, but are still not allies or do not support each-other, then we place them in the same column but with a separation line dividing them. See examples Battle of al-Hasakah (2015) Northern Aleppo offensive (February 2016) Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) Palmyra offensive (2017). So to clarify, the way we have listed Israel in the infobox (with the separation line) is to indicate they both clashed against the SAA but are nether allies nor do they support each-other. If there was no separation line then that would be making it out as if Israel was supporting the rebels, which no sources have confirmed. If we listed Israel as a third-party (as you said) that would indicate Israel clashed against the rebels as well, which it has not. So I would ask that you please cancel your removal of Israel which has been heavily sourced to have conducted four rounds of air-strikes against the SAA during this offensive. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mentioned the main article was because I remember bringing it up there, only to find this sub-section of the talk page devoted entirely to this topic, and I see someone else mentioned the separation line that you mentioned. My concern is that to the average reader, this means nothing as is just a formatting quirk. Combined with the fact that the idea of Israel as puppetmasters and/or suppliers of the terrorists exists out there in the ether, I feel like this is a special case where a greater effort should be made to distinguish roles, lest Wikipedia contribute to misinformation or propaganda. Do you have some guidelines you could link to that support the dividing line thing? I've looked and didn't find much. Eik Corell (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that it is really not clear if Israel only shelled the gov forces in retaliation for errant shelling. While the claims that Israel supports Jihadists are simply false and have been largely disproven (for example Israel helps to kill ISIL commanders on the Golan), it has been proven that it supports non-Islamist rebels on the Golan Heights (see for example several reliable Western sources: a Rubin center report, a Wall Street Journal report, and a Independent report, based on the last one; one group which has openly admitted to be supported by Israel took part in this offensive. Furthermore, the frequency of airstrikes by Israel during this offensive is notable, insofar as all hit the government forces and none the rebels. Thus I support EkoGraf in that Israel has to be kept in the infobox. Applodion (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guidelines, its been simply accepted as an unwritten rule/template by all for years now that the separation line exists to indicate in cases such as these two belligerents that are fighting against a third, and that although they are not fighting against each-other they are nether allied nor supporting one another. Again, I provided you with examples of how its been done throughout the years. It would be POV to consider this a special case (unless sources confirm it as such or editors agree) and its speculation on whether readers think its a formatting quirk or not (nobody has thought it for years since we have been writing it in this way). I would ask you to reinstate Israel based on the established template and I could propose as a compromise that we add (in addition to the separation line) beside Israel's name an asterix that links to a note that would say something like Air-strikes against Syrian Army only, without direct support for rebels, or maybe Air-strikes against Syrian Army only, unaligned with rebels. Or whatever wording you would prefer so it would be clear(er). We could work on that. What do you think Applodion? EkoGraf (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your idea with the asterix is quite good, though I would word it "Airstrikes against Syrian government only, according to Israeli government not in direct support of the rebels". This is because, as I stated above, at least one rebel group during this offensive claims that they have received financial and humanitartian aid from Israel, so saying there was no support whatsoever would be wrong. Applodion (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still leaning towards listing three parties, and I think this veers enough into the territory of the overall debates about Israel's involvement on the Syrian Civil War article that the debate should be had there instead of on this article. I'm thinking we should continue there? Edit: I've created the entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eik Corell Listing them as a third combatant implies they clashed against the rebels as well, which they did not. So we cann't do that. EkoGraf (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Israel doesn't support rebels. If anything Israelis vowed to support the Druze village of Hader which is pro-Government [2]. What is described in the article are border spillover clashes which are a minor result of the fighting between Ba'athist Syria and Syrian rebels.GreyShark (dibra) 08:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, no reliable sources have showed up confirming any support for the rebels, and thus we haven't marked them in the infobox to be in support of the rebels. They vowed to support the Druze during a later separate unrelated battle but even then that didn't materialize during the period of that battle. However, to call Israel's actions during this battle (almost half a dozen rounds of air-strikes) "minor" would not be a proper description. Their role has been notable (heavily reported on) and their actions intentionally or unintentionally affected the course of the battle. So that warrants their inclusion in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, a third column should be used; not in the same one as rebels.GreyShark (dibra) 09:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be in no way fitting for this offensive. A third column would only be correct if Israel did oppose both Syrian gov and the rebels; it did not, however, and only bombed the gov forces, thereby indirectly aiding the rebels. As I said above, we can add a note about Israel denying support for the rebels, but we should still place it into the same column as the rebels with a dash to make clear that they were not allied. Applodion (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Applodion has said, a third column would be appropriate if Israel was also in a conflict against the rebels, which they weren't. The current form of the infobox does not mean in any way they are allies. Its standard practice when we have a case where two sides (rebels and Israel) are opposed to a third side, but are not in a conflict with eachother, we put them in the same column with a separation line which indicates they are not allies. I have no objection to Applodion's proposal to expand on Israel's non-alignment with the rebels by adding a note about Israel denying support for the rebels. We can also place a double separation line, instead of a single one between the rebels and Israel. EkoGraf (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]