Talk:2015–2016 Latakia offensive

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015–2016 Latakia offensive 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

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2015–2016 Latakia offensive, 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!

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East / Russian & Soviet

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

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:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Dead URLs

Removed about 12. Not Found. Tried several times. This is what happens when bloggers are used as RS. They delete or move data or close accounts. Some were the so called Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHOR). The one man blogger. Some text left in, now requires RS. SaintAviator lets talk 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untranslatable

Non english written links. No translation available. No checking possible to see what its saying. Deleted. Some text left in, now requires RS. SaintAviator lets talk 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use foreign language refs ONLY when English language ones not available. Dont use them as well just for the sake of it. This is from a discussion on use of them on The Village Pump. SaintAviator lets talk 23:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Army liberated Salma

Meanwhile the Syrian Army liberated the strategic village of Salma and surrounding villages too. The map needs an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramataklan (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Analysis

While Strategic Analysis is a good idea, Im finding this too shallow. Its speculative. The ref is from a site in a nation that arms Syrian Jihadist beheaders. Qatar. [1] Its biased. Unbalanced. Discuss First. Reverting. Get the other sides story too. SaintAviator lets talk 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it was a neutral source. It is the "strategic analysis" from the stand point of the opposition. And this is fine because on Wikipedia we need to expose all points of view. This is why the paragraph starts with "According to analysis by Al Jazeera, ".

You say: "Get the other sides story too." Great. But are you saying that we can only create a "Strategic Analysis" section once we have all the sides story at the same time? I did my part of the job and wrote the analysis part that is from the stand point of the opposition. Am I expected to also find analysis from the other sides? Why don't you do that? Or let someone else do it? We are now building a relatively new article one piece at a time. We cannot have everything ready at the same time. Wikipedia is an incremental process. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Tradedia^talk 01:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well discussion is good. Points. It was worded in a way that sounded biased. So it looked unbalanced. Talk about Qatars role. A note here would have been best, before. Once the others sides in, its going to be bloated. Needs succinct rewriting. Maybe work in your sandbox, link here. SaintAviator lets talk 02:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have put the section below. We can leave it here for 2 weeks so that you and others can add in other sides story, rewrite it, make it more balanced, etc. and then put it back in the article. Sounds fair? This article should be more than just the usual daily news dump... Tradedia^talk 07:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude dont take offence, but Latakia cant be viewed as an island. The SAA and allies are after all of Syria. From Latakia they push into Idlib, now thats strategic. Watch this [2] and this [3] as background. SaintAviator lets talk 08:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you have a different point of view? Good. Write it into the “Strategic Analysis” section below. Tradedia^talk 05:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Head choppers invade your nation supported by Turks / Sauds / Qatar etc. Heres some strategy. Destroy them all or drive them out. http://news.yahoo.com/afp-exclusive-assad-vows-retake-whole-country-warns-150319669.html SaintAviator lets talk 06:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Write it into the “Strategic Analysis” section below. Tradedia^talk 07:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy SaintAviator lets talk 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have started incorporating some of the elements from the stand point of the gov that you suggested. So I added the expression "pro-opposition Al Jazeera" and I added a new paragraph for the point of view of gov: "On the other hand, the Syrian government claims to be aiming to reconquer the whole of Syria. In this case, after recovering all of Latakia, the next logical step might be to move into neighboring Idlib and recover what was lost to the opposition earlier in the year.[4]." What do you think? Tradedia^talk 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait one more week to allow you and others to edit this "Strategic Analysis" section and then I will put it back into the article. Tradedia^talk 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done From now on, changes to the "Strategic Analysis" section should be made directly in the article. Tradedia^talk 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text for "Strategic Analysis" section for article

According to analysis by pro-opposition [[Al Jazeera]], the objective of the Latakia offensive is to consolidate a potential [[Alawi]] dominated state (supported by Russia) that would extend from the Coast to Damascus, passing by Hama and Homs. This would entail forcing the population to leave the North of Latakia so that they would be replaced by government supporters. According to the same source, the offensive aims also at embarrassing and pressuring the Turkish government since most of the population in North Latakia are from Turkmen origin. The source attributes the advance by government troops to the powerful missiles used by the Russian airforce and to the lack of support from rebels in Idlib and Hama governorates.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.net/news/reportsandinterviews/2016/1/2/%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B0%D8%A7-%D9%8A%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A5%D8%AE%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B0%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9|title=لماذا يصر النظام وروسيا على إخضاع ريف اللاذقية؟|author=عمر أبو خليل|work=[[Al Jazeera]]|accessdate=7 February 2016}}</ref>

On the other hand, the Syrian government claims to be aiming to reconquer the whole of Syria. In this case, after recovering all of Latakia, the next logical step might be to move into neighboring Idlib and recover what was lost to the opposition earlier in the year.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/afp-exclusive-assad-vows-retake-whole-country-warns-150319669.html?ref=gs|title=AFP EXCLUSIVE: Assad vows to retake Syria, amid new ceasefire push|author=Sammy Ketz and Christian Chaise|work=AFP|accessdate=13 April 2016}}</ref>

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Latakia offensive (2015–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160118095850/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syrian-troops-seize-territory-rebels-northwest-36261908 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/syrian-troops-seize-territory-rebels-northwest-36261908

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. by Tradedia^talk 00:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2016

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: Moved. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latakia offensive (2015–2016) → 2015–16 Latakia offensive – Per WP:NATURALDIS and MOS:DATERANGE; also for consistency with 2013 Latakia offensive, 2014 Latakia offensive, and 2016 Latakia offensive (which has already been moved from Latakia offensive (2016)). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the above. I actually prefer the names that use the dates at the end, but the consensus trend seems to be away from that, so I won't buck it, and will !vote with WP:CONSISTENCY. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per SMcCandlish – I too wish the naming convention put the years at the end. But... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Suqur al-Sahara in Bashura 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]