Talk:Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015), 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!

Update Needed[edit]

According to the SOHR, the government advanced against the ISIS in al-Sab'ein and its hill.

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/the-regime-forces-advance-again-and-take-control-of-villages-in-the-southern-and-eastern-countryside-of-aleppo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.27.168 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the map[edit]

The map is there to provide a detailed diagram of exact troop movements in the earlier phase of this operation and the main thrusts which constituted the breakthroughs on that particular front, whereas the main map does not do this. Besides, even if the main map provided the aforementioned details it wouldn't render the new map "irrelevant", the term you are looking for is "redundant" or "superfluous". What is your response? Parsa1993 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operational template[edit]

1st, the operational template you keep inserting is not what 95% of Wikipedia battle articles generally include. The main infobox and lead paragraph already have all the general information. 2nd, the template is not obligational and it is said it may be included, but under specific conditions. Some examples are - ether if its about an operation that was never executed, or, if a conflict article consists of multiple independent operations than multiple copies for each operation within the one unified article can be placed. This article is about ONE offensive/conflict/operation (not multiple independent operations). EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The operation template contains scope, Strategic offensive, in this case. Article does not contain anything on scope. Furthermore, infobox has clear objectives field, rather than obscure objective statement in lead.... Gizmocorot (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted to me in the edit summary WP:BRD, but please read it more carefully. It says Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring. Status quo is before you made your bold edit to insert the operational template. As for the template itself, I repeat for the third time, 95% of Wikipedia battle articles do not include the template unless it fulfills certain criteria (which I listed). If you have a problem with the lack of scope than add it to the main body of the article. You said the template has clear objectives field, rather than obscure objective statement in lead. Both the objective in lead and the objective in template are almost a copy-paste word-for-word, making what is in the template absolutely redundant. I'm not going to revert at this time due to the 1RR rule, but I will in 24 hours make an attempt to add compromise wording on the scope in the lead (which I hope you will agree to). Meanwhile, per WP:BRD, I hope you will revert yourself. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your update. Battle articles need improvement, specifically Syrian Civil War, e.g. territory field was rarely used before update. As long as no information loss in infobox removal, should be fine. Spliff Joint Blunt (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ali Shalikar[edit]

Yes, a veteran(paralyzed from the waist below) named Ali Shalikar was martyred(passed away due to natural causes) three days ago, because of his grievous injuries, he has been named a martyr, but that is where the media got it wrong, there is another Ali Shalikar who is a Brigadier General in IRGC, the journalists must have mixed them up, Iran official media has declared that General Shalikar is alive.

Martyr Ali Shalikar funeral http://www.khazarnama.ir/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%B4%DB%8C%DB%8C%D8%B9-%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%A7/

Brigadier General Ali Shalikar http://www.khazarnama.ir/%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B5%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%82/

Iran government official denial regarding the death of Brigadier Shalikar http://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/5383368/%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B9%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA Farzam1370 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism edits made by User kajmetz.[edit]

User Kajmetz is sistematically erasing all edits made in the article regarding the Kuweyres Airbase. Please any admin keep an eye on him. Even the "See also caption" regarding that article is erased by that User, he just want to hide/erase any report or info abot the lifting of the siege. And it should be included since its on the same TO.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: Talk it out with User:Kajmetz first, here on this page (he/she would be notified that I mentioned their name). See WP:Dispute resolution. "He's vandalising" is an accusatory statement. The edit summaries imply that the reason for the reversion was because it would be more proper to put it in the article Kuweires offensive (September–November 2015). This implies the reversion was in WP:good faith or for some other reason might have made a mistake (I don't know, I haven't even looked whether it's relevant yet, I don't have time right now). Please don't stir up a fight over something which might be a misunderstanding on your part or theirs. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try to review the edits.(When you have the time). Thanks for your advise.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KajMetz's edits are not vandalism at all and are appropriate. This article deals with the offensive south of Aleppo, which is separate from the offensive towards the air base, which started a month earlier than the one to the south. For the air base offensive, we have a separate article since its a separate military operation. Thus, I have also been removing info on the Kuweires offensive from this article, since that information is more appropriate for that other article. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments[edit]

Perhaps this should be named the South Aleppo offensive, because there is currently an offensive going on in North Aleppo linked to breaking the siege of Nubl and Al Zahraa by the SAA. We can do one of three things about this, and I wanted to get your opinions on the matter before proceeding with one of them:

1. Fresh article for northern Aleppo offensive
2. Integrate the developments into this article
3. Integrate the developments into the siege of Nubl article, although there may be other objectives of the offensive such as cutting off rebel supply lines from Turkey in northern Aleppo, as well as breaking the siege. PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 or 2 - Even then i am leaning more towards 1 as the goal of the offensive in the north is slightly different in my opinion to the ongoing Aleppo offensive, in fact has the same flavour as Kuweires offensive which had objective to lift the siege and possibly secondary objectives regarding thermal power plant and cutting off supply line for ISIL. As such the northern offensive has a primary objective to lift the siege of Nubl and Al Zahraa and possible secondary objective to cut off the supply line for Rebels. Hammer5000 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters vs Wiki?[edit]

John Davison. Thousands flee as Russian-backed offensive threatens to besiege Aleppo, Reuters Fri Feb 5, 2016 3:16pm GMT
—Pietadè (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208171455/http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/the-regime-forces-regain-control-of-two-villages-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-aleppo-and-dozens-wounded-in-bombing-by-the-factions-on-sheikh-maksoud-neighborhood/ to http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/11/the-regime-forces-regain-control-of-two-villages-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-aleppo-and-dozens-wounded-in-bombing-by-the-factions-on-sheikh-maksoud-neighborhood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]