Talk:Northwestern Syria offensive (October–November 2015)

US think-tank based in Washington does not use neutral opinion

I deleted part of yesterday's (Oct 14) comment about limited success of SAA troops slow advance as the think tank used as source is directly under US influence and therefore not neutral enough. At the same token I would not recommend to use a source from a think-tank in Moscow or Riyadh either. Let's focus on what happens on the ground without being judgmental, whether the offensive has been slow or fast should be up to the individual reader to determine. 04:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

the Washington Institute is a very reliable source,it has major and reliable analyst,just saying "because that it is in the US so it can't be used" argument is not valid,we judge based on experience not political positions.Alhanuty (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

SOHR should not be cited, it is not an RS

RSN has repeatedly judged this topic, nothing has changed, if you want to dispute it, go talk to them, but it's been discussed 4(ish? IRRC) times, and is, for reasons I think should be obvious, not held to be even anywhere near a reliable source. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no RS in Syria - including official media, so people either have to compromise, about sources of events in Syria, or completely stop writing anything about this conflict on wiki (which is completely unreasnable).Rebell44 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed long ago to use SOHR as an RS since its considered an authoritative source by the RS media. EkoGraf (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of SOHR (essentially one man in Coventry sponsored by the Foreign Office) as a source makes a joke of this article - I don't think I'll bother to visit it again...Bougatsa42 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Northwestern Syria offensive"

The article uses this phrase for both naming the article and as the term to designate the subject as if this is a received name for this ongoing event. What is the basis fr this?Axxxion (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I already told you in the edit summary what the basis is. And no, the offensive does not have an official name. You are obviously unfamiliar with the established naming policy/template that we have been using in articles related to the Syrian civil war for the past four years. When an offensive/battle/operation does not have a widely used common name (WP: COMMONNAME) than we name it per its location. Such as the previous Northwestern Syria offensive, or the Southern Syria offensive, in case its taking place over multiple provinces at the same time. Or when its taking place in one specific province we name it per that province. PS You called them irrelevant links but sources clearly state offensive happening in northwestern Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I hear what you say, but you seem to be contradicting yourself: "offensive happening in northwestern Syria" -- herein is my point. The phrase in the bold type in the lede ″Northwestern Syria offensive″ gives the impression that it is a received (official) term for the event, which it is not. Look at these articles: Battle of Debaltseve, Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. They do not have any italised term to designate the article′s subject, which ought to be the case here as well, methinks.Axxxion (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian Civil war did not have open Russian and Iranian involvement before now. The "openness" of the Iranian involvement is also still in question. It has been suggested the Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive be merged with this page and I have clarified my disagreement and suggestions for future index structure for the topic/offensive/battle/operation on the talk page. Guru Noel (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, my recent changes to the lede are also broadening the subject for this article, another reason not to use the "unofficial name" and change the article′s head as well.Axxxion (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, apparently Tehran still officially denies direct combat involvement, altho it is now a charade. "The Islamic Republic denies having any military forces in Syria, but says it offers "military advice" to Assad's forces in their fight against "terrorist groups". But, obviously, we should not pretend we believe it, while the fact they deny ought to be noted.Axxxion (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we continue this thread as a merge proposal then, or do we need to start another section? If only one page were to remain, I would prefer Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive although I suggest scope for both is possible. Guru Noel (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am agnostic as to what article to preserve, but i am inclined to moving to ″Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah offensive″ heading, mutatis mutandis, that is: some geographical appellation thrown in would help, i think.Axxxion (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself in any way. I already told you pretty clearly, that the established template for offensive names among Syrian war-related articles is their provincial or geographical location, if it lacks an official term. EkoGraf (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i do not mind such heading, but perhaps we ought to refrain from beginning the lede with it in bold type followed by a definition as if it were a common designation for the event.Axxxion (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Territorial changes not updated

Rebels recaptured Sukayk (northern Hama) and Mansoura (Ghab plains) - there are rebel videos from both places in past 24 hours. Rebell44 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

need to include Aleppo and Latakia theaters

the offensive also encompasses these two areas

216.165.203.112 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Latakia events are already included in this article. Aleppo offensive is separate from this one, both operationally (different goals) and geographically (hundreds of miles apart), and already has its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reza Khavari

Contrary to the news published in english(even by Iranian sources) Reza Khavari was not an IRGC General, Reza Khavari was an Afghan Hazara volunteer who was the commander of Liwa Fatemioyn(Fatemioyn Brigade), Iran state media referred to him as Sardar e Shahid which literally means Martyred commander but because title Sardar is also used by IRGC and LEF generals some Iranian and foreign media mistakenly came to believe that he is an IRGC general, below are the Persian articles that correctly identify him as an Afghan mujahedin commander and not an IRGC general Funeral of Reza Khavar commander of Fatemioyn Brigade

A brief bio on Reza Khavari nicknamed HojatFarzam1370 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Killed officers

Hi there, I want to provide you with some information. You have already mentioned a few officers in the regime forced who were killed in combat. However, I have been listening to different sources in the past weeks. Here is what I found out; these officers are all Syrian as far as I know. Some have been officially confirmed but not all:

Major General Ayman al-Badran – Army (Commander Brigade 131)

Brigadier General Hassan Suleiman Hassan - Latakia

Brigadier General Iyas Saqr - Morek

Brigadier General Mohammed Ahmed Mansour – Aleppo

Brigadier General Ayman Mahmoud Ayyoush – Latakia

Brigadier General Mohamed Ibrahim Saeed – Aleppo

Brigadier General Ali Muhanna – Homs

Brigadier General Amjad Ismael - Homs

Brigadier General Ayad Mohammed Saqar – al Ghab

Brigadier General Hassan Issa – al Ghab

Colonel Hassan Mcanna - Morek

Lieutenant Colonel Basel Muhammad Ali