Talk:Palmyra offensive (December 2016)

Background

Section needs work - not sure what it's trying to say.Shtove (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Concluded

Has there been a long enough hiatus that we can say that ISIL has won this battle, and then any subsequent actions by the Syrian Army be given its own Wikipedia article?86.47.233.58 (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't show the offensive as ended

Both Al-Masdar News and South Front have been accused of being pro-government and pro-Russian and there's a strong bias in their reports. ISIL advances have stalled and there are continuous attacks and clashes by it. Regardless, this is not the first time they have made such a claim. Unless independent, reliable and neutral sources report the offensive has ended, the offensive must be kept open. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I see user EkoGraf shown the offensive as ended even though the reasons for keeping it open has clearly been stated. It has been more than a week since I posted on the talk page about a discussion but no one came to discuss. I'm open to suggestions, but at least talk. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32, both LightandDark2000, Vorman and me are clearly in consensus over the issue. First, there are no sources confirming that the sporadic clashes that took place recently near the base were part of an organised ISIL offensive. Second, Al-Masdar News has been deemed reliable or at least semi-reliable by Wikipedia editors after several discussions in the past even though its pro-government. And third, even if Wikipedia editors have deemed Masdar unreliable (which they haven't), numerous other sources have been provided citing the current fighting as part of a new SAA-initiated offensive that has been launched. At least two of which are anti-government. These are pro-opposition SOHR [1], Aranews [2] and IB News [3]. If you want, and if this new offensive becomes notable enough, you can create a new article for this new offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Now can you please tell me where did you and Vorman and LightandDark2000 agreed on any consensus? They didn’t make any comment. Although they earlier showed it as ended before I had changed it to ongoing, editing something simply doesn't mean as "consensus". Also LightandDark 2000 has edited at least three times after I removed that the offensive was over, and in none of them did he show the offensive as ended again. This isn't consensus at all. There needs to be proper discussion. Past edits that too before someone objected and changed it isn't "consensus". As for Al-Masdar being reliable, it makes several assertions which no sources report. I've seen its reports and they don't add up sometimes. It has said 3 times at least that the offensive ended. And neutrality is also to be considered for a reliable source, Al-Masdar isn't neutral especially towards Syrian Army. South Front is also known for being not neutral and regularly uses non-neutral and sneer language against others who it doesn't like. Regardless, its reporting is a bit more reliable than al-Masdar. That's why I have used it when no other source is available. But here there are other sources showing clashes as ongoing.

As for you sources, what you say is OR here:

• SOHR said a "violent attack", its a counterattack. "New offensive" or even "offensive" isn't applied in it. Also in the same source it clearly stated that "violent clashes between the “Islamic State” organization against the regime forces and militiamen loyal to them in areas at the vicinity of T4 airbase". How come they are there if they were repelled?
• ARA News - Although does say "an offensive" regarding to Huwaysis attack, nowhwre did it once state the one at T4 ever ended.
• IB Times - The report of IB Times is based on that of ARA News, it even states so in third paragraph. No mention of ISIL being repelled.

You neither have the consensus, nor reliable sources. I don't see a reason here to show it as ended. Please revert yourself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

First, SOHR does not say its a counterattack (you called it that on your own), instead it clearly says the SAA start a violent attack, which the SAA confirmed to be an offensive on their part. The SOHR source also clearly says that the clashes by IS against government forces in the vicinity of the T4 airbase, is part of fighting that started when the SAA launched an attempt to recapture points that they had previously lost and even made advances. So, the fighting is not directed by IS towards the airbase, but instead the fighting is directed by the SAA towards IS-held positions in its vicinity, and IS is fighting back against the SAA. Finally, SOHR also simply called ISIL's offensive an attack (same language).
Second, ARA news also confirms (and I quote) that the SAA launched an offensive on Islamic State’s (ISIS) strongholds. That day, it was specifically focused on the Huwaysis area. While we have SOHR today confirming an SAA attempt to seize back areas near T4 has also been launched. Also, the SAA artillery attack on Huwaysis could have only come from the nearest SAA positions, which are at T4.
Third, considering IB Times, which is a reliable source however you look at it, is citing ARA News, it just gives more credibility to what ARA news reported.
Fourth, none of the sources you previously cited for the period in between January 4th (when their offensive was reported to had ended) and January 12th/13th (when the SAA's offensive was reported to had been launched) talk about ISIL attacks on the T4 air base. In fact, most talk about SAA shelling, air-strikes and firing on ISIL positions, not the other way around.
Fifth, even if you did find sources stating there was an attack by ISIL on the airbase, it would clearly need to confirm its part of their offensive. Thus far, there have been no sources to confirm that the ISIL offensive is still ongoing, and several that there is an SAA one.
Sixth, you say there is no consensus, but so far there have been at least four editors (including LightandDark2000, Vorman, Mehmedsons and me) that have tried to close the offensive and that ISIL's attack on the T4 air base has been repelled, but you reverted each and every of our edits. You also said LightandDark2000 and Vorman made no comments, even though they clearly stated in their edit summaries and I quote The attacks on the Tiyas Airbase have been repelled. and Not major, but victory..
Seventh, I again urge you to create a new article for this new offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

PS I just provided yet another source [4] reaffirming that what's taking place right now is an SAA-initiated offensive against IS near the airport. EkoGraf (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Listen, its getting a bit late and I need to go to bed. I am offering you that if needed I myself will create an article for this new SAA-initiated offensive that has been reported by five sources so far. If you agree, I will create the new article as soon as tomorrow. Think it over and we talk then. Cheers and good night! EkoGraf (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When did I say SOHR called it a counterattack? I specifically highlighted "violent attack" so you recognised which statements were from the source. I was using the definition of counterattack here. ISIL attacked first, Syrian Army attacked to regain the areas it lost. Is that not a counterattack? I clearly read the source. Why will I make a statement nlt in source? As for "start a violent attack" where did it call as an offensive? Nowhere does it once has SAA confirming it is a new attack or ISIL was repelled. Also about your claim "The SOHR source also clearly says that the clashes by IS against government forces in the vicinity of the T4 airbase, is part of fighting that started when the SAA launched an attempt to recapture points that they had previously lost and even made advances." nowhere it once stated that. Also SOHR recaptured several positions before you show the offensive as ended. Does that mean it was over right then? SOHR clearly states that clashes "continued " between ISIL and Syrian Army.

As for ARA News, why are you making the same statement. I asked you to show where did it say "ISIL has been repelled". A comcurrent offensive is possible. And IBTimes which you clearly stated in citing the same news. It is the same report and that in itself doesn't add any real weight. But here my point is again, where does IBTimes state the ISIL offensive was repelled.

You haven't read the sources before claim ing that I didn't cite any sources stating that there were any clashes near T4 airbase between 4th and 12th January. In fact the source about 5th January itself says clashes happened around T4 airbase (http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=58458). As for shellinga and air raids, they have been mentioned because they are carried out in a battle. SOHR clearly mentions the clashes in at least one source from 14 January as "continued" and never once did it state the offensive was repelled. You're making OR statements that others "need to provide" a source that says it is part of the ongoing offensive. But you never once provided any reliable source that shows the ISIL offensive ws repelled.

And your claims I reverted "four users" who closed the offensive are utterly baseless. In actual only LightandDark2000 and you were the ones' whose edits I changed the offensive back to ongoing. And you are the only one I actually reverted, because while changing LightandDark2000's version of the page, I made a significant change in the article unlike you. Vorman only edited to change the result from major victory to victory , see his edit. Mehmedsons, never closed the articlr, he only changed the result stating SAA's actions of repelling all attacks (no ISIL attack has been successful), and retook several positions. He didn't even once changed the offensive to being ended : [here is his edit. You have levelled fictitious allegations at me because I have pointed out 1RR. Please do remember that such behavior of levelling baseless allegations isn't allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

About your new source, [5], it is nowhere stating that the ISIL offensive was repelled. We need a clear source here. Even a new offensive doesn't necessarily mean the old one is over. This is why it i s OR to show the offensive as ended based on sources that simply say a "new offensive" or a "offensive". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Besides I don't know why you are offering me an article. We need a real consensus and cannot consider it so until other editors state clearly what they think should be done. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that you said SOHR was calling it a counter-attack. I pointed out that SOHR isn't calling it a counter-attack when you were calling it as such in your own interpretation of SOHR. SOHR called it an attack, while calling ISIL's offensive an attack as well (same language). I am not interested in arguing with you over any allegations or some-such. That you don't like or consider Masdar reliable is your personal opinion, however, discussions were made regarding Masdar in the past and its been deemed a semi-reliable source by Wikipedia editors. At this point, there are no sources confirming ISIL's offensive is ongoing, while there exist five sources confirming there is an ongoing offensive/attack by the SAA. There can be two concurrent offensive at different locations, but there cann't be two offensives at the same location at the same time. If you think ISIL's offensive is ongoing, then provide sources please if you can. I have seen no sources confirming there's an ISIL offensive for almost two weeks now. Standard Wikipedia editor's practice on Syria-related articles (for years) is when there are no sources confirming there is an ongoing offensive for more than a week or even longer, we close that article. And we have sources here (which you consider unreliable) saying the offensive has ended, as well as sources (which you are trying to not take into account) confirming there is a new offensive initiated now. So now, provide me with a source for your allegations that the ISIL offensive is ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf rights at this situation and I support his actions because we are both provide the reliable sources which make mention ISIS offensive at Tiyas failed and SAA launched the counteroffensive. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources listed by EkoGraf clearly show that this offensive is considered to be over, and that a new offensive has started. Thus I support his proposal about the creation of a new article. Applodion (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf is right. SAA gains ground against ISIS, SOHR also confirms that. It is finally time to end discussions about the credibility of Al-Masdar. I repeated several times that Masdar is ultra pro-government while SOHR is ultra anti-Government, however, both sources complement each other. Vorman (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

References

EkoGraf let me remind you what you said First, SOHR does not say its a counterattack (you called it that on your own). Anyone can get what you mean here. As for any "interpretation", I don't call it as interpretation when it fits the definition. We regularly use one word for many words on Wikipedia. Al-Masdar isn't about me considering it reliable or semi-reliable. Even others can be wrong when they consider it reliable. Per Wikipedia rules, we see its reliability and not popular sentiment. Al-Masdar said THREE times the offensive has been repelled. That in my mind is not a reliable source, not to mention its dubious reports which no one else reports usually. There's a reason why I don't use it. And yes, sources do confirm there is an ongoing offensive. There is no reliable source stating that the offesnive was ended or repelled. Also as you have broken 1RR I ask you to revert yourself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Acording to the local source SOHR the second day in a row continues SSA offensive in area near the Tiyas Airport and try achieve an advancement and regain control of areas they have lost in the western desert of Palmyra, and other areas in eastern countryside of Homs, since the “Islamic State’s” attack on the 8th of December 2016.link Mehmedsons (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mehmedsons, you are not properly understanding what I'm trying to convey here. I didn't say there is no "SAA offensive". Besides Syrian Army has actually been trying to regain its positions before 4 January. The only problem is there isn't any reliable source that states "ISIL offensive has been repelled". It is completely possible that both sides can attack each other at the same time, concurrent offensives aren't rare. It will be OR to close it just because sources said "SAA offensive". MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As User:EkoGraf and a couple of others here have stated, the main ISIL offensive ended late last month. ISIL's sustained offensive on the Tiyas T-4 Airbase mostly concluded by 7 January, with the Syrian Army at that time pushing ISIL back from the airbase. Despite the continued clashes, the major offensive actions have seemingly ended almost 2 weeks ago, and the results on the ground seem to indicate a major ISIL victory (albeit not a total or decisive victory), due to the massive gains made by ISIL. And the comments by the other users above pretty much sum up what I had to say about the sources and their reliability. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the Syrian Army counteroffensive clearly merits its own separate article. The SAA offensive comes a number of weeks after the end of the main ISIL offensive action, and the SAA even declared that the operation was an entirely different offensive. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A different solution

I have a different solution in mind. Mehmedsons recently added ARA News' report that an ISIL offensive was repelled on T4: Syrian Army foils major ISIS attack on T4 military airport in east Homs. The report is from 22 December, however clashes still kept ongoing after that: The regime forces shell the area around Inkhel and casualties in the regime forces’ ranks in the vicinity of T4 airbase and 62 soldiers killed by clashes around the T4 military airport. These reports are from 24 December. What is however known that ISIL has achieved no advancement since then. And ISIL has attacked multiple times without any gains. So here's my workaround: Instead of saying Syrian Army victory and offensive repelled, we say Limited ISIL gains and offensive stalls, sporadic clashes continue (PS: I have made a modification to this, see my later comment). This will be much closer to actuality. I hope you find it acceptable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody was actually trying to put the end result of the offensive as Syrian Army victory. Those three results that you mentioned would be appropriate if this article was only about the T4 base attack, but its not. Its about the attack on Palmyra as well. That's why Partial ISIL victory was appropriate, because ISIL managed to capture Palmyra, but didn't manage to capture T4. In any case, Mehmedsons has now also vocally voiced his opinion the T4 attack was repelled and Applodion has also affirmed the offensive has ended. As for your proposal (if I understood correctly) to set the end date of the offensive as 24 December, I agree to it. Make the changes if you will please. I will create an article for the new SAA offensive later tonight. EkoGraf (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the offensive on the airbase, not Palmyra. Though they are part of the same, sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. Instead of "offensive stalls", I'll simply say "ISIL attack on T4 airbase stalls" or "ISIL offensive on T4 airbase stalls". After that we add "sporadic clashes continue around the airbase". And we'll then add some sources for the clashes. Also sorry about the Syrian Army victory, I didn't read it properly and also didn't motice some of the changes made by others today earlier. But please let me know what you think about my proposal. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, even though it would seem most agree the attack on the base was repelled (and sources deemed reliable by WP editors have been provided), I accept. I just want to resolve this issue. Make the corrections, while I will create the new article sometime during the night. EkoGraf (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not that I think the sources are completely wrong or lying. The problem is here that sources stay clashes are still continuing. It will be therefore better to say stalled. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's really funny how every single Assad victory is considered Major and decisive here while any defeat is a partial victory for the opposing side, I don't know how can recapturing Palmyra and capturing most gas fields in eastern Homs not be considered a Major victory, Sorry but capturing all this huge area can't be considered a partial victory at all 3bdulelah (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They only completed half of their objective. They won at Palmyra, but failed at T4. EkoGraf (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not the case at all. This is just one article. See Battle of Raqqa, Siege of Menagh Air Base, Battle of Al-Tabqa air base, and Second Battle of Idlib, for example. You can add decisive to these articles if you want. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 22:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Palmyra offensive (2016–17) → Palmyra offensive (December 2016) – I made this request because the desired page name is already used in a redirect and was the original name. If I am making request the wrong way, please let me know how I should make the request to move this page to that redirect. Per the reliable source ARA News and the compromise reached here, I have changed the date of end of the offensive to 21 December, which the ARA News states the offensive was repelled and ISIL was driven back: Syrian Army foils major ISIS attack on T4 military airport in east Homs. Therefore it is no longer appropriate for the article's title to remain Palmyra offensive (2016–17). Please change the article's title back to Palmyra offensive (December 2016). Please also shift back Talk:Palmyra offensive (2016–17) to Talk:Palmyra offensive (December 2016). If anybody has any problem, please let me know. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Why has nobody moved the article yet? - I thought we had agreed to do so... Applodion (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date and time of Palmyra offensive - Battle still ongoing or not ?

Did the Palmyra offensive really end, or just the 1st stage of the battle (IS offensive) end, and now is the 2nd stage of the battle (SAA counter-offensive) ?

Or does it need to make another article of Palmyra counter-offensive ?

At the moment it is no longer "sproadic clash" between SAA and IS, SAA is making a large offensive. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago, and as result of that discussion, another user has agreed to create a new article for the SAA counter-offensive. Stuff like that takes time though, so the new article is not yet finished. Applodion (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ISIS is the winner in the December offensive in Palmira

Syrian Arab army is defeated in this ISIS-offensive in Palmyra and expelled 60 km west of the city. From 22 December to 8 January, had been fighting for an air base T4. ISIS's attack on the airport is denied. After that they were occasional skirmishes on both sides until 12 January. Syrian Arab Army on 12 January launched a broad offensive in the areas around the eastern province of Homs. Not only Palmira In the center of attention, but the expansion of the area around the airbase T4 and are fighting for oil and gas pipelines in the wider area of the desert. Eastern Homs offensive (January–February 2017). --Baba Mica (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)