Talk:Aleppo offensive (September–October 2016)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aleppo offensive (September–October 2016) 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

A news item involving Aleppo offensive (September–October 2016) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 September 2016.

Wikipedia

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Aleppo offensive (September–October 2016), 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!

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

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

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

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.

Final assault?[edit]

Any info on the "final assault"? (Western Propaganda) CNN was talking about this.DerElektriker (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point[edit]

Is it not a little early to be calling this a "turning point in the war"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.184.245 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence foretelling it being a turning point. That "some people " think that this might a turning point isn't very relevant and at the least would belong in the body, not the lead. Jcmcc (Talk) 07:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st, its not us who are predicting any future. 2nd, we cited it was a prediction by some. 3rd, we said it could possibly be a turning point per those some, not that it is. 4th, reference for the sentence has been provided. 5th, it is not up to us to decide whether the opinion of others is relevant or not, our obligation is to present the point of view of all and let the readers make their own opinions. Compromise, I moved it to the body of the article from the lead, as you suggested. EkoGraf (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else yanked it completely. Given that in any war, "some" have attributed significance or a turning point to an event that really had no bearing on the overall effect of the war, and that whoever put the statement in didn't even bother to source which "some" that would be, it still feels kinda un-encyclopedic. I'm fairly sure it is up to us to at least find sources for those opinions. 66.183.184.245 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are the authors of those articles. Both the authors of the Reuters and the LA Times articles stated it could possibly be a turning point. It is up to us to present all sides POV of the unfolding events. It is not up to us to pick and choose which views we keep and which we remove. Compromise has been made and, as Jcmcc450 has suggested, its in the main body of the article, specifically the analysis section. And so it would not be vaguely attributed to some, its been now attributed to Reuters and the LA Times. EkoGraf (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters and LA Times is both POV (Western Propaganda). DerElektriker (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DerElektriker that the article is currently unbalanced. There needs to be analysis from sources sympathetic to the Russian/Syrian Govt position to balance the propaganda coming out of the US/Western Europe.Newzild (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despised?[edit]

The intro states "The Aleppo offensive (September 2016) is the military operation launched in Aleppo in late September 2016 by the despised Syrian Army ...". Despised by who? Should despised be used here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.31.186 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was added by some Western Propaganda Bot. It should not be used there. The article should be clean of POV and propaganda slurs. DerElektriker (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add "per opposition" in the losses reporting, SOHR is pro opp, and it's clearly a biased source for gov losses thanks37.165.225.171 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appropiate reaction?[edit]

Helsinki's Evangelical Lutheran Kallio church started the initiative that sees 70 churches across the country ringing their bells daily at 5 pm to pay tribute to the victims in the war-ravaged city of Aleppo in Syria. http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/ringing_church_bells_pay_tribute_to_victims_in_war-ravaged_syria/9227993 ※〶 14:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or Western Propaganda? DerElektriker (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has caused fuss in social media(storm in teacup) since last time when bells were rung in this large scale was when our(Finland's, yes, I have bias) longest-serving President(Urho Kekkonen) died. I'm not here to "defend" adding this - honestly, I'm rather indifferent to this whole "initiative". If you deem it deserves mentioned in article, go ahead. ※〶 12:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nusra involvement[edit]

Why isn't al-Nusra in the list of groups on the side opposing the regime army? Such omission means not telling the truth --Mt christo (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the 3 main factions listed in the infobox and is even mentioned in the lead paragraph. I don't know where are you looking at if you can't find it. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the infoboxes. And don't see it. Actually, that's why I am asking. Which infobox is al-Nusra in?--Mt christo (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is hidden. OK:)--Mt christo (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed under their new name, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. EkoGraf (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Global Research[edit]

I took a look at it, and it doesn't look very trustworthy. Haven't edited anything, but maybe avoid it in the future? 16:04, 26.10.2016, Non-registered user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.69.161 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Globalresearch is well known as a Kremlin founded source dedicated to perpetuating conspiracy theories --82.27.233.142 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that ties to Kremlin usually go without any proof, probably assumed that for some topics proof is never needed --Mt christo (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FSA[edit]

Some of the rebel groups in eastern Aleppo late September 2016 identified themselves (also) as Free Syrian Army (FSA), said The New York Times, 27Sep2016.

Since 2011, FSA is an important group/name/label in the Syrian Civil War (which is illustrated by the fact that FSA is one of only six oppositional forces that have their own subsection under §4 in article SCW: ’Belligerents’). Therefore, it is important for people who want to read in Wikipedia about this September 2016 Aleppo offensive (as part of the SCW) to be able to quickly recognize that (important name/faction) FSA is also considered to be present among those rebel groups during that offensive. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already noted in the lead that the primary rebel fighting force is Fatah Halab. Fatah Halab is a coalition, its not a group. Its a coalition of 34 groups, of which at least 15 (little under half) belong to the FSA. So making an emphasis on the FSA makes it look like the FSA is separate from Fatah Halab, which it is not, unlike Nusra and Ahrar which really are separate. EkoGraf (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording seems a bit off. While Fatah Halab consists of some groups in the FSA, it does not include "the" FSA. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I seem to have changed the columns of the infobox, but I can't see what I need to do to fix it. Can anyone sort that? (I'm not very good at infobox formatting!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]